User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 5

Poetry
T'was a young man who first discovered the horse, Mane of dancing silver and light. Said the young man to the horse, "your secrets, tell me," And the horse replied, "I just might." Shocked was the young man; "You speak? Tell me more!" And the horse told him tales of old. Of secrets and conflicts, great fortunes and friends, And of songs the great bards once told. So thrilled, was the young man, with his talking horse, That he told everyone he could find. "Come meet him, my horse, and you'll see he can talk," And some followed, though just to be kind. So they followed the young man, 'til there stood the horse, Mane of dancing silver and light. Said the young man to the crowd, "ask for secrets and stories," But the horse kept his mouth closed up tight. "Tell them" urged the young man, "of secrets and songs," "Tell them everything you told to me." From the horse, not a word, from the crowd, now, disdain, "I'll make him talk, you wait and see!" As the crowd walked away, the young man took the horse, By the mane and demanded to know. "Why did you not talk for the crowd as I asked?" "Why did you not speak when I said so?" But the horse simply gave him a quizzical look, raised its ears, And turned back to the grass. "I'll teach you," said the young man, "for making me look a fool!" "I'll teach you for my looking an ass!" The young man took a stick and did flog that poor horse, Mane of dancing silver and light. Before long, that poor horse, it was very much dead, Though not once did it put up a fight. But kept flogging the young man did, well past the point, Where the poor horse had started to rot. And the young man kept flogging, each day and each night, Though quite why he just could recall not. And so after months with that stick in his hand, In the grass by the horse, young man fell. And turning his head to consider the mess exclaimed, "Pity me; must I suffer this smell?"

Stalwart 111  11:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Afd fix
Thanks for fixing that up. There's still a dupe of the Sant Kaur Bajwa nomination though. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @ User:DerbyCountyinNZ - ✅. Will contribute to the AFD too. There's an SPI I've just started at Sockpuppet investigations/DogsHeadFalls . Cheers, Stalwart 111  06:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I see they've been editing from an IP as well. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, exactly the same 74.7* range. Stalwart 111  06:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with an article?
Hi there, Stalwart. You'd said recently that if I needed help on a topic where I have a COI, you'd be willing to look. Well, I have one where I've had zero luck trying to draw the interest of editors previously involved with the article, or involved with relevant wikiprojects. Perhaps you'd be willing to take a look? The subject is Richard Stengel, the editor of Time magazine. Back in June I posted to Talk a set of suggested changes in order to update the article with new information and improve its accuracy; while the requests are fairly small, unfortunately the message I posted is fairly involved, doing my best to explain clearly. Is this something you'd be able to help with? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, happy to have a look! Stalwart 111  14:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks! Looking forward to seeing your comments over there. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @WWB Too - ✅. It took a couple of days because there's been other stuff going on and I wanted to test the edits properly before making them. All looked okay so I've gone ahead and made all four. Cheers, Stalwart 111  10:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My article was deleted
Please let me know what is the reason my article was deleted.

My article is Dealer24x7.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajlcet001singh (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it will be again because it is obviously promotional. Creation of the article was also listed as an edit-for-pay job at Elance (raised during a recent SPI) so you obviously have a conflict of interest too. Stalwart 111  14:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up, appears to also be creating the article as well through AfC (declined once, resubmitted with no changed, declined again). Although the specific content is different, there must be some sort of meatpuppetry going on, the odds of two people turning up to write an unreferenced advertisement about a non-notable company are rather slim.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ritchie333, I got your Talk:AFC ping too. As above, the creation of Dealer24x7.com was listed as a job at the freelancing site Elance. I imagine that when one writer failed to get it up, the job went to another. Either that or the same editor has just decided to start another account thinking nobody will notice. I came across it by coincidence when contributing to the massive Morning277 SPI. There may well be some connection. I have the title watch-listed so will be notified if someone actually tries to create it. Thanks for the heads up mate! Stalwart 111  13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Mises fellow
Hello Stalwart. I am contacting you to let you know about an RfC regarding Gary North (economist); he is a scholar associated with the Mises Institute and I know you have some background knowledge of that subject. You can read about the RfC here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comments on the RfC, Stalwart. They are very helpful indeed. Problems with the North article stem from the fact that he has his finger in so many pies. One story I've found says he was a "computer expert" because he opined on the Y2K issue. He got his degree in history, but he's commented on economic & personal finance subjects so he's listed as an economist. Now he's getting more and more into home schooling, etc. But most of the actual RS on him is related to the Christian Reconstructionist material. If we could get North out of economics and retitle the article with some other descriptor, I'd be delighted.  WRT the multiple subsections, I agree. I made a couple of attempts to combine them, but got resistance.  (Hence, so many subsections!) So, considering that certain paragraphs re-state his views about different subjects (without corresponding secondary sources) I thought that leaving them as is would be fine for now. I added tags and started a discussion. When the discussion got bogged down into a 2/1 debate, I opened up the RfC.  Hopefully the RfC will resolve the issue of using primary source quotes from North/secondary sources -- and then we can move on. In doing a HighBeam Research inquiry on North, I came up with scores of hits. Plus 100 more if Y2K is part of the search. About a dozen of the remaining non-Y2K results have potential for inclusion as secondary RS. Do I want to expand on his article? Hardly. I do not like North in the least.  Again, Stalwart, I greatly appreciate your help.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

by the way: Sorry about all the pings! Steeletrap (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! Better to be pinged so I can respond than have a conversation about me, without me. Cheers, Stalwart 111  05:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Stuff...
You're Australian, right? What's your opinion on the WP:Notability of Essendon supplements controversy? Just wondering, since my brother follows AFL and showed it to me... Ansh666 06:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am, and I've left you a message on your talk page. Stalwart 111  09:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. He's a former WIkipedian himself, so we were talking about it. I'm going to go have some tagging fun now... Ansh666 19:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries - people from the AFL project might be able to help. Stalwart 111  23:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
The heavens opened and dropped a bunch of kittens on me so I am handing them out to those who have remained sensible despite it all...

User:Carolmooredc  20:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 


 * Oh the irony, that having identified "sensible" editors you threw all pretence of sensibility out the window and began attacking, misquoting and deliberately misinterpreting editors to the point of driving people away. Staggering. Stalwart 111  01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice on Mises Scholar Ralph Raico
There are genuinely appalling violations of policy littered throughout this walled garden article. Literally all cited material in the article comes from either primary sources or Mises related sources, with the vast majority of material being utterly unsourced, including: the claim that Raico is an "Austrian economist" (when nothing else in the article, including OR, indicates that he is anything but a history professor at Buffalo State); the implication that three of the most eminent professors in the storied history of an elite university (U of Chicago's (Nobel Laureate economists) Hayek, Friedman, and (English Professor) Weaver) worked closely with Raico on what is implied to be an official university journal; that Friedman effusively praised (what is implied to be) Raico's contribution to the the journal; and so on and so on ad nauseum. There is also an abundance of fan-club style trivia detailing obscure awards and titles ("poet laureate" of "Circle Bastiat"; "lifetime achievement in the cause of liberty"; etc) alleged to belong to Raico.

I'm writing to ask you for advice, because you (unlike me, or the mises institute supporters) are a neutral party who also has particular expertise on AfD. I think the article sorely needs an AfD, since as it stands now a strong case for deletion can be made, and this case deserves a hearing. What say you? Steeletrap (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Steeletrap, I've decided not to actively involve myself in anything Mises related for a while. Ironically, Carol has decided that the best defence is a good offence. And she has certainly been offensive ever since, even to "neutral parties". The BLPs she claims are being "trashed"/"destroyed" by the removal of sources are among articles that only months ago had no sources whatsoever. She didn't care enough about them to clean them up then, but suddenly seems to care now. I don't get it, but I'm sick of the constant personal attacks, WP:IDHT behaviour and deliberate misinterpretation from her so I'm taking a step back (though I'll keep an eye on RS/N in case Binksternet decides to explain his misguided ad-hom any further). I'm sorry if that means one less person available to help out with articles like the one above, but I'm sure you understand. Thanks, Stalwart 111  01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand. Owing to the fact that we don't seem to have too much overlap in the non-Mises articles we tend to edit, we may not see each other around any more. I want to tell you that I appreciate and admire your contributions to this community, and am grateful for the help you gave me as a brand-new editor a few months back! Steeletrap (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you are mentioned
Good day, Stalwart. FYI, you are mentioned at BLP noticeboard in a message concerning the Mises Institute. It concerns a review of a book published by Mises Fellow Jesus de Soto. The question is whether this statement, written by Mises fellow Guido Hulsmann, in a Journal published by the Mises Institute, is RS for the assertion stated by Hulsmann. SPECIFICO talk  13:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Stalwart 111  01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Transportation of animals
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion due to notability issue
Hi Stalwart, I just wanted to follow up on my nomination for deletion in regards to the Braydon Szafranski article. While he won the "Rookie of the Year" award (Transworld), I really do not think he needs a Wikipedia page, as I thin it is fair to state that he is not a notable figure in the world of skateboarding. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.--Soulparadox (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - is now at Articles for deletion/Braydon Szafranski. Cheers, Stalwart 111  06:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRV Jagger Eaton
Hi Stalwart. thanks for your message on my talk page and thank you for offering to help creating a better article. i have looked at your draft and it looks much better than mine but more im sure i could add.

I am concerned as a new user how easy it is for some admins to delete pages with no justification. it is quite a process for a new user to fight a deletion and will likely turn off new users very quickly. is there somewhere i can express this concern? i understand questioning the content of the article, especially do to the age of jagger but just deletion is not right.

Is it really possible this wouldnt pass AFD?

Labeach2002 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart 111  12:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * any idea when a decision will be made about this??Labeach2002 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Saint Thomas the Apostle
Hi. noticed that you are a regular editor on the page. Have started a discussion with other editors in the Talk Page on some suggestions to improve the article. The discussion are located here,. Appreciate if you could review and give your thoughts on this. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note - I've added my thoughts. Stalwart 111  12:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sydney ethnic enclaves AfD catfight
I am coming here with an olive branch because I fear there is a sincere mutual misunderstanding here. I never meant to misquote you, nor my comments were in any way in bad faith, and I'm baffled and sorry that you feel like that. I assume you aren't in bad faith either. Regardless of whatever we think on the article, can we try to get a mutual understanding? -- cyclopia  speak!  08:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Accepted and agreed entirely. I've hatted that back-and-forth but have - in fairness - left your list in place as others have since responded to that. I'm Australian so most of that was early in the morning which probably wasn't helping. I can certainly accept that you didn't intend to misquote me and I apologise for suggesting that and your other remarks were in bad faith if they weren't. By way of a broader explanation, it would pay to understand the context in which the term "enclave" is used in modern Australia and why Australians, in particular (almost every "delete" vote so far, plus a New Zealander) might be strongly in favour of removing the article. I suppose there is no readily-available US equivalent to point to, which makes it difficult. It might be like creating an article called List of Jewish ghettos in Florida and listing a bunch of modern gated communities where lots of Jewish people live. Do walled Jewish communities potentially fit a loose definition of "ghettos"? Sure. But that's not how we use that word any more.
 * Unfortunately, the debate seems to have now been skewed in terms of Australians vs. Inclusionists, which is about as poor a sample for consensus as you can get. Australians will overwhelmingly vote to delete the article because they are used to the word being used in a racist context. The introduction of a "no signs in English" criteria (a common racist refrain here; Google "spot the Aussie") didn't help. Even if the article is kept (though I can't see that happening) it will likely be cut down to a stub (with the unsourced list removed) and then "counter-balanced" with the sources that say the term is racist. The joys of WP process.
 * Anyway, let's move on to more productive things. Again, my apologies for my part. Stalwart 111  09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies as well, and thanks for the explanation. The evolution of "enclave" into a derogatory term is somewhat fascinating. I still maintain that if RS use the term neutrally, we are somehow forced to follow them, but now I see where you come from. Thanks. -- cyclopia  speak!  10:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing Person Kimberly McAndrew
Would you have a look at this bio article I have written. Kimberly_McAndrew I would like to have some feedback on what it needs or what is missing to make it stay on wikipedia. I welcome your suggestions or review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbignell (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever happens with this article, I thank you for helping me give it a fighting chance.jbignell (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not convinced the nomination was is particularly good taste. But I also have some concerns about your posting of messages to a bunch of different editors seeking their help to save your article. Please have a read of WP:CANVAS. And new messages go at the end of most talk pages. Stalwart 111  02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I contacted people in this region(via eMail & talk pages) that maybe able to help add to the article, "it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation" not to be disruptive or create more problems for myself. I figured that if people from the area remembered Kimberley they would be more likely to support and add to the content. After reading WP:CAVAS for the first time, I can understand your concerns. Do know that my intent was true.jbignell (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

MarioNovi
Sorry to bother you again, but MN still not letting go. After Sitush lost interest, he/she has gone back to picking on my edits. I'm on 3RR's on Better Badges, so I need a second view, Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not lost interest. The pair of you need to stop stalking each other and you, in particular, need to familiarise yourself with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nor have I, and I've just commented at WP:AN3. Sitush, I hate to say I told you so. Stalwart 111  06:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So don't. It is blindingly obvious to me that Wwwhatsup is not blameless in this farrago. - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I've never suggested otherwise (nor has he, from memory, including above where he acknowledges he's at 3RR). He had issues with his COI (ironically, I'm the one who called him out on it at the first AFD) and has since declared it where relevant. Could he have done so sooner? Sure, and I've said as much. But his "COI edits" comprise a small portion of his 8,500 total edits (many of which over the last 6 months have been to respond to MN's spurious rubbish). What portion of MN's 440 edits have related to Wwwhatsup/Punkcast? 80%? 90%? In what way is an editor who spends 80-90% of his time talking about another editor here to build WP? Surely you're not suggesting that we should overlook MN's gross policy and pillar violations because his target has occasionally operated in a COI grey area? Another editor's COI is never justification for harassment. Stalwart 111  07:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wwwhatsup harassed me at Jeff Berlin too or did you forget that. MarioNovi (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not harassment (read the policy) - that's you and he arguing and Sitush (quite rightly) warning you both for "sniping and stalking". WP:HARASS:
 * Your 6-month-long forum-shopping-spree and single-minded focus on another editor is harassment. Stalwart 111  07:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Stalwart, they both need sorting out. Wwwhatsup should not be editing a lot of these articles and their standards of contribution are often appalling for someone with that number of edits. I'd suggest that they both move away from music-related stuff entirely and go learn what this project is about but since that is unlikely to happen, I'm already drafting a ban proposal. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll obviously support a topic ban for MN (I'd support an indef block, to be frank). I'll support a caution for WW, even a 24 block for edit-warring in an article where he has a COI. I'd also support an interaction ban (acknowledging that removing MN's capacity to talk about WW would reduce his editing to near zero). What I won't support is equal sanctions for harasser and victim. All that does is assure would-be disruptive editors that if they harass and bait their victims for long enough, eventually both they and their victim will be subject to sanctions. They can disappear back into the ether and their victim gets hobbled. Again, a conflict of interest (even a very significant one, which this isn't) is never justification for harassment. Stalwart 111  07:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not think that linking to a website operated by them (Www) and that contains video footage etc of dubious copyright provenance and still contains links to purchase options (even though they promised to remove some time ago) doesn't amount to a massive COI? - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "dubious copyright provenance" is a matter for him (they are not being posted here) and purchasing/licensing/subscription options on a site are pretty standard fare (even for major newspapers and libraries), and I still think it is important to address those issues. But again, it wouldn't matter if we were talking about Bill Gates flogging Microsoft on WP - it still wouldn't justify the sort of harassment MN has been engaging in. Stalwart 111  08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is - per WP:COI, WP:YT and WP:ELNO points 2, 4 and 5 - Wwwhatsup is indeed doing the wrong thing and although I do not agree with the method, much of Mario's "harassment" has a sound basis in policy. I'm going to be stripping out all of those links myself. They have got away with this for far too long. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is - per WP:COI, WP:YT and WP:ELNO points 2, 4 and 5 - Wwwhatsup is indeed doing the wrong thing and although I do not agree with the method, much of Mario's "harassment" has a sound basis in policy. I'm going to be stripping out all of those links myself. They have got away with this for far too long. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the question of copyright is addressed in sources - both here and here. As I argue on my talk page earlier with MN, the inclusion of some video documentation in music articles is appropriate. Commons is not an option. The value of the same should be judged intrinsically, preferably by someone with hearing, by consensus on a case-by-case basis. It is something that could at least be discussed at WikiProject Music, WikiProject Wiki Makes Video or at the Pump. The bulk removal of all punkcast video links could fairly be considered to be a continuation of MN's program of harassment, certainly by him/her as vindication of same. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, and WW should absolutely be subject to the same guidelines as other conflicted editors (COI editing being "strongly discouraged" but not prohibited). I strongly disagree with the suggestion that MN's "harassment has a sound basis in policy". How can egregious harassment have sound basis in policy when engaging in such harassment is a breach of policy in and of itself. Again (and from the very start, when MN's first action was to unsuccessfully nominate two of WW's article for deletion and try to out him) no amount of conflicted editing justifies harassment. From COI/N itself - "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline". Mentor WW. Guide him, admonish him, instruct him, warn him. By all means. But don't for a minute think that questionable COI editing justifies any form of harassment - multiple WP policies say otherwise. Stalwart 111  08:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, his method is wrong but his policy position is sound regarding the links. They are going and I will be seeking a ban on Www unless they stop contributing to those articles. It is not just COI because there is also a lot of evidence of WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the policy position becomes unsound because of the method. This is one of those cases where the ends certainly do not justify the means. You can take up the EL issue with WW - I've never stood in the way of editors-in-good-standing helping him (or anyone else, for that matter) with his COI. He certainly doesn't need my protection and that has never been my aim. Competence is a matter of mentoring if the editor is contributing in good faith and you can make your own judgement about that. But I honestly can't believe we're still talking about the extent to which we want to sanction the victim while the unrepentant perpetrator shops yet another forum and continues his campaign of harassment unabated. Stalwart 111  09:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Interested to listen/read today of a study showing the importance of visual information to music comprehension. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not, thanks. Purely because it doesn't impact at all on the validity of the external links. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess one solution would be for you to remove all links to the Pinstand from all articles that are used as sources/ELs here on Wikipedia or Commons. In addition, add the CC-BY-SA release to each of those and figure out the (apparent) contradiction that appears to apply in at least some cases whereby you claim that the rights remain with the artists but somehow CC-BY-SA still applies. You'd still have a conflict but at least it wouldn't be so obviously a commercial one. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pinstand is another site that is essentially an archive. The links are not commercially important. There is something to be said for preserving the punkcast site intact, for the sake of web history, as an example of pre-YouTube video. But if go they must it wouldn't be too much trouble. The music videos are usually cc-by-nc-nd, cc-by-sa is only on some spoken word, like Richard Stallman. Could be some early ones were screwed up. Example? Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! Stalwart 111  02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Help request
Hi stalwart. It seems the speedy deletion has been overturned. I was hoping you might be able to help with the Page content as well as merge your draft version of the Page to the current one. I'm concerned it will be flagged for deletion again. Thanks Labeach2002 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC).


 * I'll merge some content over and I've responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart 111  02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Again...
Well we had pretty a nice break from the freeboard drama. SQGibbon (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. Yeah, we'll let the SPI folks sort it out. Shouldn't take them long! Stalwart 111  02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dang, I missed all the extra drama! Oh well, once again, nice job taking care of it all. SQGibbon (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Luis G. Jimenez-Arias
Dear Stalwart111, I request your reconsideration to avoid removing the article Luis G. Jimenez-Arias of wikipedia. This is my first article on wikipedia and our goal is to give out about the doings of prominent bioethicist in Costa Rica, especially in the environmental field,Costa Rica a small country fighting for environmental protection. The author in question is a pioneer in this field. The article has been improved and new references have been included. Your help will be greatly appreciated.Lalo3767 (talk)

Wogvilles
Cat of the Greek one now empty so a speedy should remove. Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree - have responded on your talk page. Thanks! Stalwart 111  10:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki SPAM?
Not sure what to make of or how to respond to the message left on my talk page today by Vicki breazeale any suggestions? Tyros1972 Talk 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No idea mate! The message is addressed to Orange Mike (an admin). Maybe she sent it to you by mistake? She seems to have something to do with Vicki Breazeale and it looks like she is trying to start an article about the group she founded. COI everywhere! Stalwart 111  23:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate for clearing that up, I will basically say what you told me as I had no idea! lol Tyros1972 Talk 12:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem! Stalwart 111  00:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:Accenture
Hey Stalwart111, in case you hadn't seen, I wanted to let you know that I've replied to the most recent round of comments from you and FeralOink over at Talk:Accenture. It looks to me like we've largely reached consensus about the remaining issues, so if you have time to take a look and implement the changes, I'd appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Powell-Peralta
Hello Stalwart, You recently reverted my addition to the Powell-Peralta page. I'd been reminiscing about the era, and noticed that all the work I did with Stacey Peralta had been miscredited ('Dunlop' not Dunlap on imdb pages) or overlooked (like the P-P page) on the web. That's why I added my own name. I did three videos with these guys, not one as you suggested, and worked closely with the director on Future Primitive. Back then, it was a rather loose tribe, to be sure, except for the Caballero-McGill-Mountain-Hawk core, but those of us who worked the videos were certainly on the team. I take your point about conflict of interest; perhaps someone else will fix the omission later on. For me the edit was just a trip down memory lane, recalling a happy moment of life. Sincerely, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdunlap (talk • contribs) 06:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll reply on your talk page. Stalwart 111  07:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

if you might...
At the deletion discussion about the article The Pixar Theory, the topic seems to have met the GNG though a lot of (recent) coverage.... BUT my own research indicates the the base concept of "The Pixar Universe" has been recognized in media at least as early as 2003, making this later "theory" notable only in it making enough recent waves to be considered a "viral meme". Toward addressing the earlier concept, I began work on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe, but upon further reflection, perhaps best that my little sourced article be folded into the main topic Pixar so that we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? And would you care to assist? Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page. Stalwart 111  07:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Query regarding "royal houses"...
Thanks for alerting me to this - it's the same problem again. It's all made up. If you tried to verify any of those references, you'd fail - it's just bonkers. I rolled it back and blocked them all - please feel free to verify, maybe I missed something. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! I'll reply on your talk page too. Stalwart 111  12:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Catacomb saints
Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 221. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mandarax, thanks for your note. I hardly ever nominate DYKs so I'm not really sure how to fix what I've done. Should I just edit the hook I have there or should I propose an alternate? Stalwart 111  22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine to edit the existing hook, especially since nobody has started a review yet. You may simply shorten it, or replace it entirely, as you wish. And, of course, you can also supply an alt if you desire. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Done - it's now 186 characters. Hopefully that complies. Stalwart 111  23:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: AfD Ryk E. Spoor
Many thanks for your help and fixes, I'd obviously erred on the spelling. Hopefully I will get better at AfDs, as well as learning more about the tools available. I mainly do article cleanup, refs and factoid adding, so AfD is new to me. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Catacomb saints
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes to text
You changed the text that I made to clarify some incorrect information on the biography. The information that you put back in to the biography has a reference which clearly shows that the Wikipedia information is incorrect. For example, it states the Delta Russia Fund had over $500 million under management. The correct figure, according to the reference, is $120 million. Furthermore, the reference does not support that Dmitriev was co-managing director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare21 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Inslaw
Historically, Inslaw was referred to as the Inslaw Scandal. If you Google "Inslaw", for example, there are a number of references as the "Inslaw Scandal"...even if you look it up on Wikimedia you will find the same. The text which you took out is not from a blog...it is the federal testimony from the Attorney General's Office of the United States Government. Cloherty's connection is Inslaw is significant because she was the main investor in Inslaw and was investigated by the Federal Prosecutor for giving false testimony in this case. If you read the transcript to the end, you would have seen that what was updated was accurate and clearly sourced. Therefore, I have put back my original change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare21 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What rubbish! That's not "federal testimony from the Attorney General's Office of the United States Government" and the title says as much. It's hosted on a personal blog (as I said). At this stage, I have no doubt you're just a sock-puppet of one of the many editors who have spent the better part of half a decade trying to spam exactly the same claims into that article. Go and find something productive to do. Stalwart 111  09:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you seem to be a very unhappy person (or at least someone who is not professional). Let's have a civilized discussion to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate.  I find it humorous that you continue to refer to the source as a "blog".  Inslaw involved the Department of Justice and was quite prevalent in the news in the early 1980's.  Dan Rather even reported on it on "The CBS Evening News".  You also left an odd message on my talk page but gave no explanation on what you disagreed with and why.  As an academic and historian, I would appreciate it if you would discuss these changes with me, who by the way is a respected and known expert, rather than reveling you some sort of power trip as a volunteer unpaid Wikipedia editor.  Let's be professionals to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate and enjoyable for all readers please!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare21 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I should also add that you have left sections of Kirill Dmitriev's wiki page where you reference The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times. These references do not support the text at all....there isn't even a link.  Maybe I am a "newbie" or "sock" for whatever that means, but you cannot just put in a random reference if the reference does not specifically support the statement made.  If I am missing something, but could you please show me where the reference supports the statement.  Have you read the alleged reference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare21 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Then be professional and use reliable sources (WP:RS) to verify (WP:V) your claims. I didn't add either of those references - I simply reverted your unexplained removal of them. Sources are not required to be online. Not angry at all, not power-tripping, not unhappy, just cynical and have seen it all before. Either you're a new account with the same old agenda of trying to spam "controversy" and unsourced rubbish into Cloherty's article, or you're a genuinely new editor who would rather edit war and argue than learn about basic editing, sourcing and process. Either way, I'm not interested. But I will continue to revert silly things like your entirely unsourced "Patty" claim when multiple reliable sources refer to her as "Pat". Stalwart 111  15:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)