User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. U To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well then, not sure what inspired that but I certainly appreciate it! What a nice message to get out-of-the-blue! Stalwart111 12:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

About your signature

Hi Stalwart111, I noticed your signature uses </font> codes. Actually font codes are now outdated. So you can use

[[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<span style="color:green">111</span>''']]

instead if you like to. Both the results are same. Cheers, Jim Carter ^(talk) 07:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Outdated? Sounds like me! Thanks for the tip Jim - it might be time to refresh my signature generally. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

He He Welcome. Jim Carter ^(talk) 09:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jim - I took your advice and went for something Stan Lee would be proud of. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, now Stalwart's become a communist! Ha! Ansh666 10:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ansh - more Captain America really. Ha ha. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

B-b-but, his star is white! And you're Australian! And I don't know what this all has to do with anything! Haha!... Ansh666 11:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Damn it! You've exposed my secret communism and my comic book ruse! St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Gotcha! hah ok I'll stop before we break WP:NOTSOCIAL too badly... Ansh666 12:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, before I start looking around for somewhere to update my status or post a pithy 140-character something! Ha ha. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for catching my typo. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries! St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Winton Capital Management

Hi there, Stalwart. It's been a while, nearly a year I think, since we last talked, but I'm hoping you'll be able to help me with a few more small updates to the Winton Capital Management article. As with the requests you helped me with last year, I'm presenting these suggestions on behalf of Winton Capital Management and, because of this, will refrain from making any edits to the page myself.

I left a more detailed note on the Talk page earlier this week but, given how infrequently the article is edited, I'm under the impression very few people have the page Watchlisted. Is this something you'd be able to help with? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi WWB Too. Those changes have been made and I've left a note on the article talk page. Stalwart111 23:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for making those changes to the Winton article, and greetings from WikiConference USA in NYC! A few days ago I posted a follow-up request to make similar adjustments to the introduction. Would you have a few extra minutes to take a look at this? If not, I'll reach out to User:Tdslk who helped with the first round of requests. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Stalwart. I saw your comment on Tdslk's Talk page as well as the Winton Capital Management page. Thanks for your willingness to help out there. If you do have a little more time to give, I am still looking for someone to help with the request that I posted on the David Harding Talk page. That request is here if either of you wanted to take a look. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Accenture Acquisition

Hey Stalwart

I have made the list. why you deleted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirbhaygupta (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Now i have added the references... now plz dont delete the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirbhaygupta (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No Nirbhaygupta, that's not how it works. None of those acquisitions are notable. The list is completely unnecessary and your "sources" are just company press releases that don't meet the requirement for independence outlined in Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. There is extensive discussion about amendments to the article on the article's talk page. Please take your changes there and secure consensus before pasting your list back into the article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations, Stalwart111.

Unfortunately Warrenkychu has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Why are there no references?

To reply, leave a comment on Warrenkychu's talk page. — Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Warrenkychu, I didn't review it - I have autoreview rights. It was created as part of an ongoing discussion at AFD. It doesn't have references yet because it's mostly content merged across from other articles and it's brand new. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Add your references. I believed there was a misunderstanding in this situation. Your page has now been rereviewed. Warrenkychu (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem - already being added. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors

I believe that you have an interest in this topic. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks LibStar. I'd seen that but hadn't commented yet. I thought we'd likely be of the same opinion and I was right. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Separate DGK page?

Hi Stalwart, I have wanted to look at this for a while, but I have only caught up with it today. The DGK company has been under the Stevie Williams page for a long time and it feels appropriate to create a separate page, as it is the only significant skate brand to be included as part of the cofounder's page. What do you think?--Soulparadox (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Soulparadox! A quick search suggests there is more than enough for the company to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, as long as we balance the commercial history with some of the controversy about messages and popularity among "stoners". Agree, splitting from Stevie Williams seems long overdue. You always do great work, but let me know if you want a hand with anything! Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. It seems like it will be okay then. Cheers.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of California (novel)

Hello! Your submission of California (novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for California (novel)

The DYK project (nominate) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance

Stalwart, thank you very much for helping with camaraderie at CitizenShipper and I really appreciate your working with me. It appears that you have had a harder time working with User:BlackCab who may be working on his first paid article. It seems you might have gone to COIN rather than ANI at first to determine whether an editor is managing a COI properly, and you might not have escalated the charge to edit-warring just because of one tag and called for a topic ban. The content question is not obvious to me as I don't know what medical rules apply to be able to make an absolute statement like "no evidence", so it seems that discussing on talk and allowing a tag during the discussion should not have been a problem. The lack of each party understanding the other's position is a factor and more content talk should resolve the problem, so I don't think such talk should be banned when it is the best resolution. Given all that you've said, it would be very chivalrous of you to back down a bit and suggest, e.g., a topic ban for only one week while other editors work out the medical question (it doesn't seem that it's worked out from what the other editors have said alone). I don't think an indef is appropriate for someone who has just got started and who is trying to work with the community, and banning BlackCab from milk won't enamor him to work with other editors if there is any other paid editing. I hope you can give this editor the same consideration you gave me. Frieda Beamy (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Frieda, I did. BC was afforded the same level of good faith as other COI editors with whom I work regularly. My talk page archives are full of threads from conflicted editors asking me to consider edit requests. The difference between you and them and BC is that BC believes their edits are not promotional, despite every other person who has assessed them agreeing that they are. As a result, BC believes they should be exempt from the conditions at WP:NOPAY. BC seems to believe they fall into the same category as those working for museums and art galleries who happen to edit WP as part of their work and get paid for it. But BC is contracted to a public relations and media management firm for whom A2 milk is a major client. You'll notice I went to ANI initially to resolve that question and get some guidance as to whether or not BC should be asked to comply with WP:NOPAY. The argument and edit-warring prompted the call for a topic ban. I have no say over the length of such a ban - they are typically 3, 6 or 12 months depending on the closing admin's discretion. "Indef" usually refers to a block, against which I have specifically advocated. I don't believe BC should be blocked and nothing in their edit history away from A2 milk would support such a call (in my view). Topic bans are issued by the community when someone demonstrates they cannot edit a particular subject area with a neutral point of view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and your obvious reference to me as an "advocacy watcher" because I happen to be involved in two COI cases at once is way out of line. I didn't revert BC's initial edits to that article - someone with a long-term involvement in that article did. I became involved days later after a post at WP:FTN and because pseudo-science, in particular, is covered by standing WP:ARBCOM sanctions. BC made those edits without any discussion on the talk page where a number of those specific issues had previously been discussed. Have a read of the talk page - most of those discussing her edit didn't even know she was a paid advocate until I pointed it out. Objection to her initial edits had nothing to do with COI. They believed BC was editing in a non-neutral manner way before they found out BC was being paid to edit in a non-neutral manner. You need to WP:AGF a little bit - there isn't some fundamentalist cabal undoing COI edits for the sake of it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about my phrasing. We used to have Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch, which was fine by me but less sporty than its current name. But I guess two cases doesn't make you a watcher. I also was going to say your nom was well-meaning, it was just taken up by two editors who have had a very active partnership expressing opinions at COI, but I didn't get to typing that anywhere.

I don't want to inflame anything with my observations; but I don't think paid editing is limited to just paid advocacy here, and GLAM and Reward Board there. The idea of ethical paid editing is that you don't edit as a representative but as an independent Wikipedian who is taking up some interesting subject on the prompting of an outside party; that's the goal anyway, though many fall short, especially the first time. There may have been mistaken edits, but they're getting sorted I understand, and usually at least an inline tag is allowed when one editor has an unresolved issue and communication hasn't gotten through. So I'm having trouble connecting the dots between "paid advocates may edit talk" and topic ban. Do you mind if I give an oppose on your thread? I feel silly asking but I don't follow you on how it helps anything. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll also note I didn't start that thread at Talk:COI anyway - BC did and pinged me to illicit a response.

As the latest supporter at ANI has quite rightly stated, the issue of paid editing (or not) is irrelevant to the request for a topic ban. You're not connecting the dots because they are very few to connect. The topic ban request relates to BC's inability to edit the article neutrally - that applies equally whether BC is being paid to do so or not. It's not a question of "mistaken edits" and if nothing else I would counsel you to read the diffs and review BC's actual edits before contributing there. BC blindly reverted the removal of her original 53k byte edit, despite the fact that there was an established consensus on the talk page about a number of the things BC was trying to add to the article. They then added a {{dubious}} template to make a WP:POINT and edit-warred to keep it there. BC has maintained a preferred version of the article (with all of the promotion and none of the "compromise") in draft space. And note that not one other person has agreed that the edits weren't promotional across 3-4 different forums - there's nothing "independent Wikipedian" about those edits. And this isn't a matter of, "the prompting of an outside party" - BC is being paid by a public relations firm hired to promote the subject and is making promotional edits as a direct result of that payment. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked a second time and it looks the same. BC jumped to 53K after extensive drafting, was reverted, tried it again because much sourced material was (blindly?) lost, did not protest a second revert, and a 40% good chunk was restored. All that was 13 July and there was no established consensus then that I see, so I can understand BC's attempt to retain the good sources while the discussion went on, and that's what WhatamIdoing resolved. Then there were two attempts to introduce info about BCM7 that you reverted, and three attempts to keep a "dubious" tag in the article (using templates isn't pointy or edit-warring, it just points to discussion). And that's it. And that seems about par assuming a user's never had a run-in with MEDRS before. And a draft sitting tight in userspace doesn't mean anything.

Obviously the 53K version with the word "adverse" under an ordinary glass of milk stems from some misunderstanding somewhere. But ANI is for fixing problems that exist, and the promotion problem doesn't exist now and was resolved by ordinary editing and BC's acceptance of WhatamIdoing's input. I'm not convinced that I should get involved (everything is a test case for the TOU now), I'm just surprised that you were so tolerant with me working with you and yet you don't see BC as trying to do the same thing.

NOPAY says "strongly discouraged" by consensus, and this has been taken to mean "do so at your own risk", not a true prohibition. I'm not sure if you see it that way but WT:COI is pretty good about defining that. Usually we don't jump to topic ban on a first offense and with the other characteristics I mentioned. Why don't we talk to BC some more and see if we can reach a compromise? Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the 30% that was restored was routine corporate history. The other 70% was almost pure promotion. Even parts of what was restored included dishonest sourcing designed to distance the subject from controversy or attack the subject's competitors. That wasn't picked up by WhatamIdoing when he restored it - I cleaned it up later. The BCM7 information was included in both original edits and then added a third time and then added a fourth with a revert. The "dubious" tag was obviously designed to be "pointy" and its removal was reverted twice even after other editors had comprehensively dismissed the need for it. As a comparison, you've not reverted a single edit to the CitizenShipper article and the only edit you disagreed with you took right to the talk page for discussion. ANI doesn't exist to solve content issues; quite the opposite. It exists to address editor behaviour. Again, the difference is behaviour - playing the victim, claiming others are "hostile" while you edit-war, claiming the rules don't apply to you, claiming your edits aren't promotional while everyone else disagrees, editing to make a point and refusing to listen to multiple other editors. BC has done each and you've done none of those things. I certainly don't mind if you get involved but not one person (anywhere) has even remotely defended any portion of that behaviour, nor should they. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications and kind words, Stalwart. I think we disagree about what happened in most of what you just raised but we agree that it's not worth us fighting over. Kind of like the AFD, and I appreciate that. Anyway I'll keep watching (I totally agree with User:Protonk's independent comment), and I'll see if I can do anything helpful. I'm going to keep the WT:COI thread going. Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Regularly works with COI editors but doesn't watch advocacy. I'm wondering what I would call that if anything.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Benevolent? I work with COI editors because I know they have something useful to contribute and 99% add to the general professionalism of the editing corps around here. Our aim is to write an encyclopaedia - why would we reject the contributions of professional writers just because they are professional. But maintaining a neutral point of view is critical. If you can't do that, you're not welcome, whether you're writing with a coffee in your hand or a pay-cheque. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And BlackCab now admits getting the message. Since you said you can work with this, doesn't that change your proposal from topic ban to voluntary brightline editing restriction? I can understand if you don't want to take responsibility for the other editors or even extract yourself from the pile at this point, but how you handle the proposal gives vibes about how benevolent you want to be. Something to think about. Frieda Beamy (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm perplexed as to the purpose of your message, 2 hours after I posted a conciliatory note at ANI and on BC's talk page. No admin in their right mind would move forward with a topic ban after an exchange like that; there's no need to formally change it. Please just allow these things to take their course - nobody needs to be forced to the negotiating table. We're all sitting together already. As I've explained numerous times, the topic ban proposal wasn't related to paid editing so it's not a matter of swapping one for the other. A confused running commentary is unhelpful. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We may have disagreements without fighting. I'm just less used to the formal informality that prevails around here. I'm going to take a couple questions to the topic ban policy page for my own understanding. Frieda Beamy (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 10th (Magdeburg) Hussars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 10th (Magdeburg) Hussars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th (Magdeburg) Hussars until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Afd

Greetings, saw your message. Actually the problem is you were the only one to !vote. Remember Deletion discussion is a part of community consensus but in this case not much community input were found. If the community haven't responded in the given time (Generally two WP:RELIST) then reliable consensus can't be reached. That is the reason why I have to close it as no consensus. Feel free to make a second nomination if you feel or a WP:PROD will be fine. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, kind of... the nominator !voted too (by nominating it) and had previously prodded it (which means I can't prod it again) and yet nobody bothered to substantiate an argument in favour of keeping it. Instead of "having" to non-admin closing it, it would probably have been more helpful to contribute to the discussion to help form a consensus. Anyway, I assume it was closed with WP:NPASR? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, Jim, the fact that you would suggest a second PROD after an AFD (both of which would be in breach of WP:PROD) suggests a lack of familiarity with deletion guidelines. I'm all for non-admin closes (close plenty of things myself) but you really need to be careful with the advice you give. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops I just now noticed that it has previously been Prod'ed. Sorry for that I haven't noticed that. And as for this, I have seen that months ago and forgot totally. Very sorry. I myself have closed many Afds too. Even helped Dave, to understand when a non admin should close. Actually I took a long wikibreak and forgot many things. Sorry. I have seen such afds where not much community discussion !vote resulted a no consensus. That is the reason I did that. It's okay if you make a second nomination. And very sorry, Stalwart, I totally forgot, I think my brain is losing memories. Very sorry, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for your advice, I will be more careful and will surely won't forget them any more. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Stalwart, I appreciate the offer to start an article for Benerson Little as he has sufficient notability. If you do I will work on it. At times I feel like starting an account and your courtesy makes that more likely one day. However all the bickering and petty behavior of a select few vocal regulars has turned me off for now. I just do not want to become embroiled in all that. I wifi with my smartphone so my IP's frquently change. I do save some wiki pages in my favorites though. I also remember the good natured editors and unfortunately some of the contentious ones as well. The one advantage of an IP is I can leave when the craziness starts. Some hate that but those are most likely the ones to avoid anyway. Again thanks and Semper FI! 172.56.11.89 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, I look foward to working together on the article. If you are willing to work on another article I have one I brought over from the Deutsch Wikipedia and placed a translated version on my page as well. General der Kavallerie Karl Wilhelm Heinrich von Kleist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.89 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Please do use all the names Karl Wilhelm Heinrich von Kleist as that refers to his family heraldy and area he is from, von Kleist (of Kleist). It was also to denote social status (nobility) with names. It is also how to research him. My peasant ancestors got a much more simple name. The General of the Calvary is not necessary though as the German wiki did not include so we should not either. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the von Kleist article. I have spent many hours translating and finding the links in the English Wikipedia. There is another article in German that I could bring over that is related to Kleist. The name would be 10th (Magdeburg) Hussars which is already used in several english articles but has no link. Check it out with a search. I have been very busy correcting, adding to, and expanding related articles as well. See my history. I also need to get on the Benerson Little article. Much to do. Thanks again for your courtesy and check out the Kleist article but it is still a work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.89 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Working on 10th Hussars article on my talk page and a few other things as well. Will have a opening soon. It would be easier to transfer from German article to new article than my talk page. I sometimes get edit restrictions for unknown reasons. I just have to paste bits and pieces and remove the offending text. The edit filter triggers on some odd things. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, I need to get some sleep soon and may not have much time tomorrow but I will be back to work on these articles. I keep finding fixes and get off on tangents when bouncing around looking for information and links. I will bring over a translation of 10th Hussars but it will need much work. Thanks for tag team editing. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am back to work on the articles. I came to your page and saw it was already nominated for a deletion. I posted to keep as well, thanks for the support. It is frustrating when people do not do diligent research before bring up something formally. It seems to waste much time of many. I beleive one fix wikipedia should try is to censure those who make frivilous complaints and nominations when it is clear they acted hastily and their contention was without merit as they create a great deal of disruption. That would hopefully bring some common sense into play or at least let them know to be less reckless. I would much rather be doing the beneficial editing than responding to all the nonsense. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion, I will do but I wish people would be a little more patient and discerning. It seems many editors act rashly and that almost always creates more problems and it breeds contention which is what I really want to avoid if possible. I agree our edit trail could be time consuming to follow. I posted another request on the talk page to be patient and explained some of the difficulties when translating a foreign language and culture as well. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC) PS I have had a bad migraine all afternoon so I do not know how much I will get done tonight but I will get some done.

I had lie down a take a nap for awhile due to the migraine. Trying to work on it again. I have two word documents going with the original and google translated version. The literal google translate makes for some funny reading but it is much quicker than me having to look up some of the difficult text. The Germans have a group dedicated editors to bringing foreign language articles (mostly english, the universal language)to their wiki. I did leave a note there. I am unaware if there is an equivilant on the english wiki. They also reference much differently, each language/culture chooses their own style. Thanks for the help, understanding, and encouragement. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Stalwart, I have been dealing with a migraine that has been hindering my editing for the last two days. I tried a little last night but quit and went to bed. Good news I got plenty of rest. Bad news for my editing of the two article is I have plans for most of the weekend. I will try to squeeze some editing in if I can on these articles. Thanks again for your help. Also my IP has changed and it will likely again as I am traveling today. 172.56.21.81 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)