User talk:Stvfetterly



 Click here to leave me a message.

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Censor bars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PIPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD
Hi Stvfetterly. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. When you recently edited Bare legs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wimbeldon and Trunks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Kelly
Sorry if I got a bit grumpy over this article. I don't even think it's that important that it is not merged into the main IRT one. What annoys me is that we have the rules set up in such a way that very minor (e.g.) sportsmen, actors, and musicians can pass the required tests on the basis of one or two articles in local media but others who are far better known (and hence likely to be looked up) can fail. Which is why I used the term 'wiki-lawyering' as it seems that strict application of the detailed rules accentuates what seems to me an illogical way to arrange things. PRL42 (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've been known to get a little too worked up over pretty miniscule stuff myself. All that I was trying to argue was that the History Network can't be considered an unbiased reference if it has a vested interest in a person.  The article has been improved with several more independent references now, so all's good!-- Stv  Fett erly (Edits)  12:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

SCUM manifesto
Thanks for helping with restoring the cat to the SCUM Manifesto article, I introduced it and have tried restoring it a number of times without success. It just seems so obvious and there are about 3 justifications for it's inclusion, I can't understand why it keeps being deleted and the editor in question has shown some strange behaviour over at AFD as well. Please keep an eye on things, also, looking at the VAW category it is likely to belong in the Andy Warhol article and I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've warned the affected party about multiple reverts (since he violated WP:3RR) and have explained my reasoning for the category on the SCUM Manifesto article talk page. I'm not sure about adding Warhol to the VAM category . . . that seems a little less cut and dried to me at the moment.-- Stv  Fett erly (Edits)  18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, it's invaluable to have input from an uninvolved party. There is now a vote on the issue in talk page so you may want to formalise your position there. I should probably add there there is "history" between DC and myself which may or may not be a factor in this issue, his most recent edit summary suggesting the former being the case--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The history should be irrelevant if you bring forth good points (which you have to this point). -- Stv  Fett erly (Edits)  19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well when a say "history", I mean history and ongoing issues. Once again thanks for your input. It's incredible to think that were you not involved we'd almost certainly be looking at a "no consensus" on something so blatantly obvious.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. When you recently edited List of female adventurers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pilots and Swimmers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adoration tomato


The article Adoration tomato has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not enough sources exist to establish notability under Notability (biology) or WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.