User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 7

Input request
Hello, and nice working with you awhile back on the Vatican City Index. A user on the talk page is questioning some of the items on the page, and I don't have the expertise you have to give as learned a comment as you. If you have a few minutes to ponder, please do so. Thanks! Randy Kryn 12:58 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Randy! Sorry I haven't had a chance to have a look yet - will do so and offer some comments if I have any. Thanks, Stalwart 111  03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Wong
Hi Stalwart111! Thanks for your message. I'm a n00b wikipedia contributor, so I'm actually not sure how to start a new deletion discussion. I guess I'm also a little confused about why the article hasn't been deleted based on the previous discussion. Any help or explanation is greatly appreciated. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spngejen (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks again for your help! The reason for my deletion nomination are essentially the same as the reasons for the previous deletion in that the poet fails to meet the notability standard WP:BIO. 69.181.205.29 (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. See Articles for deletion/Jennifer Wong (2nd nomination). Cheers, Stalwart 111  10:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Randy Gage
Hi, Thank you so much for the guidelines. I had just been able to do some improvements; could you take a look at it, please — User:Johnmoor/Randy Gage draft? Thank you again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI
Hey, I'm opening an SPI for the editors involved with the Far Forest page. Since I know you were involved with the AfD, I thought you'd probably have some additional insight into whether this is a case of socking or meating. (Sockpuppet investigations/ShellyO773) I'm just a little leery about a large amount of people coming on to defend something about a fictional series that as of yet doesn't exist and hasn't received any coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Was their "defending" on the article talk page? I didn't see any in the AFD. All of those editors now have zero contributions to their names because the article in question has been deleted. Not being an admin, I can't see what they edited any more. There's probably not much I can add but I trust your judgement and so welcome the SPI. Stalwart 111  06:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was all on the talk page. A lot of it fell under the "I like it" and "obviously notable" categories. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, figured as much. Let's see what the SPI comes up with. But nice work so far. Cheers, Stalwart 111  11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you believe this?
I think this was really stretching it for notability Articles for deletion/Bhutan–Brazil relations. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . But it's WP so, yes... I can certainly believe it. I'll need to remember to make this point next time I comment on one of those - most of these constitute horrible synthesis. Few of the sources (in each case) talk about the importance/notability of the relationship - they provide coverage of events which are then synthesised together to substantiate notability. The "notability" of the relationship is often just one editor's WP:OR interpretation the importance conferred by the sum total of those individually non-notable events. Something to consider for the next ones. All I can do is to encourage you to keep up the good work! Stalwart 111  22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, many editors mistake any little relations meaning notable relations. and then quote WP:GNG because the article has 2-3 sources. now there's an editor pushing very hard for all bilaterals to be automatically notable Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Added my comments there. Stalwart 111  03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The fluff that is some of these bilateral meetings http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/press-service/statements/11674-press-statement-on-political-consultations-with-argentina- LibStar (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . It's just ridiculous. Just diplomatic corps staff with nothing better to do and business people functioning as wannabe diplomats. And the zealousness with which some try to retain this nonsense is just staggering. Stalwart 111  11:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * what kind of vague bilateral agreement is "performance of remunerated activities for the dependants of the diplomatic, consular, administrative and technical staff of their respective diplomatic missions and consular posts ". LibStar (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You tell me and we'll both know! Stalwart 111  12:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sharon
Appreciate your comments. Under normal circumstances, I would just go in there are prune away, like I cleaned up the Chavez article and had started with the Thatcher one – the Thatcher one still has a long way to go and I can sure do with some help. But the sword of Damocles hanging over the Sharon article makes this approach a risky option as I have already been reverted there before. If it's any move that one editor finds objectioable... arbcom here we come... I left comments on the talk page and was dismayed nobody discussed but kept on putting in trash while neglecting the more encyclopaedic stuff. Humpf! The chances of a cleanup being low, IMHO, hence I put it up for discussion. With that, we can start with a healthy base. I find oftentimes it's better off starting from scratch. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ohc, I think that's a very sensible approach. Hopefully the AFD will be a "line in the sand" that you can use as a mandate to make the edits required. That was certainly my hope with some of my commentary. You'll notice that while most of the !votes support keeping/merging it (as opposed to deletion), not one person has suggested that bringing it to AFD was a bad idea, or bad-faith for that matter. I think everyone can see the "end game". From the AFD close onward, you can legitimately claim that the consensus developed at AFD supports your course of action. Hopefully that's enough to deter the edit-warriors and blind-reverters. AFD is not for clean up, but sometimes it serves a secondary purpose nonetheless. Stalwart 111  09:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's hope so. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Help again with Accenture?
Hey Stalwart111, hope you're doing well. A while ago, you helped me make some updates to the article for Accenture. Since then, some of the edits that we discussed have been undone (especially some things in the infobox), and there is some more up to date information about Accenture that I think should be included. I've posted a note over at Talk:Accenture with my thoughts. Since you helped out before, I was hoping you might be able to take a look at what I've proposed and, if everything looks okay, go ahead and make the updates. Also, what do you think about archiving anything on the Talk page from 2012 or before? It's probably worth keeping our recent discussions, but the page is getting a bit unwieldy... Let me know if you have any questions! Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I just wanted to follow up here and see if you thought you might have time to take a look at this? I'm worried that, with all of the background of our previous discussions, there's quite a barrier to entry for other editors to look into these issues. If you're busy, though, I totally understand and can reach out to other folks. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris. Sorry, have been editing again from my tablet which makes large cut-paste jobs difficult. I'll have a look at Accenture when I next have a chance! Cheers, Stalwart 111  04:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tseng Kwong Chi
Hey,

In that discussion, you said "Speedy keep",

But I hope if you read that you can see why speedy-keep is not appropriate,

Perhaps you can amend your post? Thanks.

Note: If I've got it wrong, and something there meets 'speedy keep', please let me know. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Criteria 2e: "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Stalwart 111  00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

James Saldaña
The credit as "assistant director" is in the film credits itself. Could I link to a copy of the film?

23:24, 11 March 2014‎ Stalwart111 (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,913 bytes) (-5)‎. . (none of the provided references describe him as an "assistant director" - one lists him as a "videographer" - that claim simply cannot be verified with the references provided) (undo | thank)

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Blog 101 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Film Blog 101, the problem is that the primary source then specifically contradicts independent third-party sources. The reality is that the article has much bigger problems including questions about whether the subject is notable in the first place. For all the references, very few of them provide significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Many of them are local newspapers and things from the subject's college which aren't independent. I'm seriously considering nominating the article for deletion unless things are improved. Stalwart 111  06:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the film's credits Saldaña is listed as an "assistant director" and "videographer" plus another minor role. Many people have more than one role in a film. This is common. The independent third-party sources simply do not mention all of the roles, so it's in addition to not in contradiction to independent third-party sources. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Blog 101 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Then list both. My point is that neither of those things confers notability. Being assistant director of a student film project doesn't help the subject's notability. Nor does being a cameraman for an Emmy-nominated project. You would need to substantiate that he has made a significant contribution to his field (usually with independent sources saying so) or that he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Happy to have this conversation at AFD instead but I'm conscious one of your related articles is there already (with even less significant coverage) so you should (in my view) be given the opportunity to discuss that one first. Both articles simply need better sourcing. Stalwart 111  07:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the difference making a film while being a student and not being a student, especially in graduate school, if the film receives screenings and awards at film festivals in non-student categories? If Brad Pitt decides to attend graduate school for world history and then makes a film during that time is it also a student film? From Saldana's resume, which can be found online, he graduated from film school 4 years before Daughters of Abraham was published and was in a non-film graduate degree program when these films were made. Daughters of Abraham and To Die in Jerusalem according to any of the articles have the same plot with the same subject but longer (short vs. feature length), which is something that the producer (who is the same producer for both films) readily admits when it was picked up by HBO; the producer explains this in the Ny Times article and it comes up in several different articles and publications as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/arts/television/24die.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0 Film Blog 101 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand the issue with significant coverage. In the film world having your film screening at a film festival is the equivalent of being published - like in a newspaper. To even get into a film festival a film competes with dozens if not more films to be select by a jury for screening. Then if your film is selected for screening it then again competes against the films in your category for an award by jury. In either case the once selected by a jury the film is publicly screened in front of a theater full of people. How is that not significant coverage? Notability is made by being accepted into a film film festival which is a competition before a jury; just like when a running wins a race at a track meet. Film Blog 101 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And here again the producer explains that To Die In Jerusalem was expanded from Daughters of Abraham. http://thesouthern.com/entertainment/feature/trying-to-find-common-ground/article_936f032d-8629-5ecd-acb2-dbcbe2004a4f.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Blog 101 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And here the producer explains that for Daughters of Abraham she did not enter Palestine and in instead sent a crew of two to conduct filming, where her crew apparently met with the family of the suicide bomber for the first time during the films production. Up until that time the producer had only talked to the Palestinian family by phone. http://archives.dailyegyptian.com/imported-20111018204122/2003/3/3/student-filmmaker-creates-documentary-confronting-israeli-pa.html


 * "Medalia knew that contacting the families of the girls and getting them to agree to an interview would be difficult. She spent more than $300 in overseas phone calls and was able to set up the trip to Israel and the West Bank. She arranged for a driver and a translator and found a hotel in the West Bank for her crew…"http://archives.dailyegyptian.com/imported-20111018204122/2003/3/3/student-filmmaker-creates-documentary-confronting-israeli-pa.html


 * "Staying in Israel for her own safety, her crew went into the refugee camp in the West Bank. When videographers Chrissy Mazzone and James Saldana went into the camp, they saw endless walls of graffiti and painted shrines to suicide bombers." http://archives.dailyegyptian.com/imported-20111018204122/2003/3/3/student-filmmaker-creates-documentary-confronting-israeli-pa.html Film Blog 101 (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are all arguments for the notability of the film (though being shown even at multiple small film festivals has historically not been enough for a film to be considered notable). Student film or not is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who made it; it matters how much coverage it has received from independent reliable sources. Repeats of press packets on film festival websites won't generally be considered "significant coverage". But all of that is irrelevant with regard to Saldaña himself. Having an assistant director credit on a non-notable short film isn't enough for someone to be considered notable. Having a director credit probably wouldn't be enough. Multiple instances of his work being shown at small film festivals (and I use the term "his work" in the context of what I explained above and elsewhere) does not much to confer notability. We need significant coverage of him - biographical information about his history, his work, it's importance, his contribution to the industry, etc. An article with a one-line acknowledgement of his role in the process is not "significant coverage". Stalwart 111  09:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's the point - runners aren't notable for having won races at local college or regional track meets. They are, however, automatically notable if they compete in the Olympics. I would imagine the same could be said for a film featured at the Cannes, Sundance or even Tribeca film festivals. Stalwart 111  09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of "notable" is extreme at best. For an artist the work is a reflection of the persons accomplishments. A track race is clearly the wrong analogy, as it was to note the nature not the significance of the accomplish. After all, a track meet or race does not require an act of creation or creativity, as does a film. Any novice could quote Cannes, Sundance or even Tribeca film festivals as being significant based on their popularity as noted on MTV. The Temecula Valley International Film & Music Festival is a hollywood level event, which is where "Our Road To Kosovo" won Best Documentary Short (non-student category). Just because you haven't heard of the this festival doesn't mean it's not as significant as Tribeca. Apparently the honorees all of whom attend and perform at this event like Ray Charles or William Shatner do, as the festival has grown to 18,000 attendees. Concerning articles, just because someone has not written a lengthy article about the Saldana doesn't mean he's not notable, as that what film festivals are for in the film world. http://www.tviff.com/about-tviff/  http://www.tviff.com/honorees-2/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Blog 101 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My view of Wikipedia's notability guidelines is far from "extreme" in fact my responses at AFD are consistent with the community's consensus about 90% of the time. The track comparison was yours; I don't think it helps your case at all. You disagree with my assessment - that's fine. Others have called for the deletion of the article and if you want to have the discussion there, I'm happy with that. But if you're going to contribute there I strongly suggest you learn to indent your comments and sign them. Stalwart 111  00:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your view is extreme if a filmmaker needs to be Cannes, Sundance or even Tribeca film festivals to be notable. The problem I have with being notable is that it seems to rely on newspaper or magazine articles that write at length about the subject. Being a selection at a film festival for screen and/or receiving an award is how the film industry establishes notability. The Temecula Valley International Film & Music Festival is significant and is the Sacramento Film and Music Festival. Film Blog 101 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to re-read my comments if that is what you think I said. You also need to re-read some of Wikipedia's guidelines with regard to notability and the function of AFD. Stalwart 111  12:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I made the correction you requested on my talk page. Sorry, I could have worded it better. Film Blog 101 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good start. Stalwart 111  21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sea change AfD
I made a huge error on my original post, so started over. Note the Shakespeare origins of the term in the sources I provided (you may need to purge the page). Sorry...NorthAmerica1000 21:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All good mate. I noted that in my additional reply. I'll give you a chance to finish your note and then I'll reply. Thanks for the message! Stalwart 111  21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll only post new comments there now. I tried to quickly addend my post, but you had already replied. I added the "Rich and Strange: Gender, History, Modernism. pp. 3- (preview page 4 not shown in preview)" link to the top of my comment, to try and keep everything in one place. NorthAmerica1000 21:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 22:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

NorthAmerica1000 22:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tents
People erect camping tents in the woods. It stands to reason that if the tent is supported by a rope, the most likely objects to tie the rope to would be trees. What other natural object would be suitable for tying a tent rope to? Even if the rope is held up by a large rock, you would still need to tie the rope somewhere.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * People also erect tents nowhere near trees. Supporting ropes can be tied to trees (sure) but also to vehicles (as depicted in images in that article) or to tent pegs. In fact the very first image of the article shows a tent with support ropes tied to large rocks - not a tree in sight. Stalwart 111  22:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OnBeyondZebrax, I don't understand what you are trying to do. It obviously doesn't need to be secured to an upright object. Tent pegs driven into the ground and heavy rocks on the ground (both of which are depicted in the article) are not "upright objects". In fact all but one of the images in the article depict tents with support ropes not secured to "upright objects". The very point of a tent (in most cases) is that it's a free-standing shelter that doesn't require upright objects for support. What are you trying to say and why is it important that we say it? Stalwart 111  00:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice find

 * Thanks! Stalwart 111  21:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit counter?
Hi Stalwart, what's this edit-counter that I have been encouraged to opt-in to? We talking about this one? The instructions there tell me simply to create User:Cyphoidbomb/EditCounterOptIn.js I've tried twice, but it doesn't seem to stick when I click save, and returns me to "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name." Am I supposed to paste some code in the page or something? Thanx. UPDATE: I pasted "test?" in the window and now the page exists, but it don't look like nuthin'. UPDATE again: Looks like the opt-in worked. Silly process. Sorry to bug ya. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Got it in one. Nice work. Not sure why it isn't there by default (bit silly, yes) but there you go. Stalwart 111  21:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support
Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Looking forward to working with you in the future, Stalwart! (That's the sort of personal touch one can apply, even in a form letter!) :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem Cyphoidbomb. Glad to lend my support. Shame it didn't go the "right" way but I'm glad you're not discouraged. Look forward to seeing you around AFD as you work toward another RFA. Cheers, Stalwart 111  01:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Gambling in the People's Republic of China listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gambling in the People&. Since you had some involvement with the Gambling in the People's Republic of China redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agriculture
Declaring an interest as Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, and (as User:Johnbod) as a editor of Agriculture, it was not obvious to me that this edit was the right move. The paper is a multi-author (7, from 3 continents) article in a leading peer-reviewed journal of the Royal Society (the UK's National academy for the sciences), analyzing previously published research. It counts as secondary research, and is surely just the sort of source we are encouraged to use. What kind of "better source" did you have in mind? Its conclusion calls for a revision of the previous view on some dating ("These findings push back the chronology for domesticated plant use among Central Eurasian pastoralists by approximately 2000 years"), and it would probably be best to preface a mention with eg "Recent research suggests..." or similar. But just removing it does not seem the best move. I won't do anything myself, as I have a COI. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks John. My issue wasn't just with the source. It was added by an editor with a history of original research who suggested it changes "quite a bit in this section". That may well be so but adding a bare URL to the extract of a newly-published paper making big claims is a concern considering the context. Until we can verify exactly what the paper suggests (not entirely clear from the extract) we should be cautious about how it is added, where and what it is being used to "verify". All for paradigm-shifting new research, especially from the Royal Society, but I would imagine even they would advocate caution given the circumstances. By the way, I would be interested in your thoughts at the discussion I started at WP:FRINGE/N. Stalwart 111 

Wikihounding
If you continue like this again deleting sources on such grounds I will report you for wikihounding. BernardZ (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * BernardZ, your "sources" are bare URL links to extracts from recently-published "theories" unsupported by any other material. The formatting and grammatical errors aside, adding them to support your original research is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Other edits I reverted were completely unsourced (and badly formatted) original research. Please do report me, I'll enjoy it.Stalwart 111  02:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I reported you and I think you should get your fun doing something else rather then merry undoing other peoples work. BernardZ (talk)
 * BernardZ, did you actually read what I wrote? Your edits to those articles aren't "work", they are "mistakes". They are full of grammatical errors, original research, personal commentary, unbalanced sourcing and basic errors per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Asking for mediation won't help - they'll either reject it (as they did) or tell you to learn to edit before complaining about your edits being undone. "Reporting" is done at WP:ANI and as I said - please do (just beware the WP:BOOMERANG). Stalwart 111  07:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no choice but to log it here, unless you agree to stop
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI


 * Until you stop there is no point in me editing the wikipedia


 * BernardZ (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Log what here? Yes, that's a link to WP:ANI. There's no point in you editing until you work out how to do so without injecting your own original research into articles. I make no apologies for fixing errors. Stalwart 111  14:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome page on User talk:Matopotato
Hi, Thanks for the Welcome, but I am not sure why you sent it? It was in September I wrote my first article. Still I am a bit confused as to the process here and I feel that the article I wrote is being first cut down in order to be deleted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Horstmann_Technique) Kind of the opposite, I thought Wikipedia would be more open to a multitude of views. Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Deletion/Merge of the Horstmann Technique article. Hi! I was glad to see yesterday a suggestion for merging this article with an existing one about alternative therapies. Unfortunately the original Horstmann article was deleted today. Still I would like to thank you for helping out and trying to find a more creative outcome than deletion. Anyway, in the end we'll get the Wikipedia we deserve :-) Thanks Matopotato (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Offer to mentor at WP:FTN
This doesn't solve the issue you raised at WP:ANI, but maybe it'll head off a few of those problems in the future.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A few more words
Hi there. I just wanted to explain a little further my views on topic ban violations and subsequent blocks. The way I view it, topic bans themselves are alternatives to indefinite blocks. If an editor is topic banned, then the community is saying that the way that they are editing is so disruptive that it needs to stop, but they feel that the situation can be rectified simply by prohibiting editing in a certain area rather than everywhere. I feel editors in this position are already sailing close to the wind regarding long blocks, and so if they carry on editing in the proscribed area regardless I feel long blocks are called for. You're obviously completely correct in saying that blocks are preventative and not punitive, but part of that prevention is to act as a deterrent from repeating the behaviour in future. Think of it this way - when the community told George that he was topic banned, if he'd replied that it was all a load of bollocks and he'd never abide by a topic ban then he would have been indefinitely blocked. It has be clear that banned means banned. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Basalisk, appreciated your thoughts on the matter. I don't disagree with the premise of your decision-making; I suppose I disagree with the interpretation of the intent behind the comment that got him blocked. That was the basis of my question at ANI - what were we seeking to prevent by blocking him? He wasn't re-arguing his point, or attacking anyone or really continuing the discussion at all. He was asking a question, and one that related to the conduct of others with regard to his topic ban. I suppose I have concerns about the idea that someone has been blocked to prevent him from "repeating the behaviour in future" when the behaviour in question (so it seems has been acknowledged) was to ask a badly-worded question in the wrong place. Had he asked it differently or had he called attention to it via his talk page with an admin assistance template he likely wouldn't have been blocked. Right? So that's my concern. Guy has since made an excellent point at ANI that perhaps he should have been indeffed in the first place, on the basis of conduct thus far. I can certainly see the merit in that and it is perhaps our failing (as a community, with me included as someone who supported a limited topic ban) that has put you in this position in the first place. Again, appreciate you taking the time to leave me a note. Stalwart 111  03:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Neologism
I happened to glance at Articles for deletion/Christopher Ferrara and saw your excellent neologism blogs-at-10- paces. A great term that really does sum up blogging as the modern equivalent of duelling. Thanks for brightening up my day. Nthep (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nthep - I do what I can! Stalwart 111  08:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics
Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

More in the world of bilateral relations
Always meaningful meetings... http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/index.php?lang=en&opc=3&sel=2&pId=55 LibStar (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * At least those are both fairly significant Islamic nations so there might be something of value there. But yes, exactly the sort of thing that would be spammed into Lebanon–Pakistan relations as padding to suggest some sort of significant, long-term relationship. I had Yum Cha for lunch once and so am thinking of starting China-Stalwart111 relations. Thoughts? Stalwart 111  07:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * haha the sheer fact you did equals automatica notability, if you passed a Japanese restaurant on the way that means sushi-stalwart111 relations! LibStar (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And if I have sushi for lunch and curry for dinner can I add that to India-Japan relations? Stalwart 111  08:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with Accenture again?
Hey Stalwart, hope you're doing well. I just posted a suggestions over at Talk:Accenture that I'm wondering if you might be able to take a look at. Among them, the net revenue has been changed to the incorrect figure again. If you have a sec to pop over and see what you think, I'd appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey again, just wanted to let you know that User:Kkm010, the editor who had previously ignored the consensus on the Accenture Talk page, is now back, having again made several edits to the page which go against the consensus already established. I'm going to reach out to Silver seren as well, since he was involved in previous issues here, but if you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel
I was in the process of listing a number of significant buildings, but have been discouraged from continuing the process because each on needs to be ticked off by five people. The majority of articles I listed six months ago haven't bee acted upon. Amandajm (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Amandajm. Sorry, wasn't sure what you were trying to do there and it seemed like a strange removal (I thought it may have been a mistake which I why I "undid" the edit so you got pinged). What are you trying to do and is there something I can help with? Cheers, Stalwart 111  22:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: WikiMania leaflets
Hi Adikhajuria. I'm posting this here because my query doesn't actually relate to the project where you posted your note. I'd like to encourage more participation at WikiProject Piracy and thought that project might make for an interesting leaflet. But I won't be attending and I don't think either of the other two active project members will be attending either. Is there a process for piggy-backing onto other project requests or perhaps an exhibition stand dedicated to promoting small, under-represented projects? Stalwart 111  22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Stalwart111. You don't need to have a stand or attend Wikimania as such. All you need to do is follow the link that I have posted on the WikiProject Piracy talk page and fill out the template. Please be sure to tell other wikiprojects to do the same.
 * Adikhajuria (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Adikhajuria. Thanks for the quick reply. I can almost guarantee that no active member of the project will be attending. So if we have brochures printed, who will distribute them? I wouldn't want to waste someone's money to print a bunch of leaflets only for them to sit in a box under a table at the convention. Is there somewhere those leaflets will be available to participants or will there be people handing out leaflets for projects with nobody in attendance? Stalwart 111  12:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Stalwart111. There will be a display table in the Foyer at the conference. From there, people will be able to pick up the leaflets.
 * Adikhajuria (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)