User talk:Stalwart111

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
35		Clyde North, Victoria (talk)	Add sources
19		State (Bell/Springvale) Highway (talk)	Add sources
11		Western Port Highway (talk)	Add sources
1,625		LGBT in Islam (talk)	Add sources
30		Princes Freeway (talk)	Add sources
23		South Gippsland railway line (talk)	Add sources
6		Ibrahim Ali Omar Shah (talk)	Cleanup
487		Test (assessment) (talk)	Cleanup
35		American Jews in politics (talk)	Cleanup
73		Bundoora, Victoria (talk)	Expand
1,216		Casino (talk)	Expand
120		Railways in Melbourne (talk)	Expand
14		Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12		AMCHA Initiative (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
395		Factions in the Republican Party (United States) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12		Morris County School of Technology (talk)	Merge
150		John McCain 2008 presidential campaign (talk)	Merge
135		Brill Publishers (talk)	Merge
40		Mornington Peninsula Freeway (talk)	Wikify
47		North East Link (talk)	Wikify
228		Human rights in the United Arab Emirates (talk)	Wikify
12		History of the Iban people (talk)	Orphan
16		Neena Prasad (talk)	Orphan
3		Ruth W. Nduati (talk)	Orphan
7		Odete Lara (talk)	Stub
8		Botanic Ridge, Victoria (talk)	Stub
39		Syed Shahid Hakim (talk)	Stub
3		Bayou Barbary, Louisiana (talk)	Stub
9		Constitution Day (Ukraine) (talk)	Stub
18		Vanderbilt Beach, Florida (talk)	Stub

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

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

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

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

On dealing with those perceived to be deletionists...

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

@Jclemens: it's not about that editor being a deletionist. In fact, if their "deletionism" aligned with the community's view of what should be deleted, it wouldn't just be okay, it would be welcome. It's about the disruption of that editor going unchecked by the admin corps while other editors are blocked for highlighting that editor's disruption. If addressing the totality of that editor's disruption, including at other venues, helps to remind admins that we in the community have noticed their conspicuous silence on the matter, it has some value. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinion on these AfD stats

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

Hey HighKing. I think those stats suggest you could certainly call Eastmain an "inclusionist"; my guess is that he would probably agree with that sentiment. An extreme view one way or the other probably isn't super helpful, and you'll find that closing admins (who are familiar with the "regulars" at AFD) might be inclined to give a contribution less weight if it isn't well-thought-through. That said, there are plenty of inclusionists (and deletionists) who support every AFD moving in their preferred direction. Of late, we've been dealing with one particular deletionist whose primary contributions to AFD are in the form of nominations. 99% of their contributions are deletion nominations or delete !votes. But a full 30% of their nominations are closed at keep, many speedy keep or SNOW keep. And most of their nominations are made within minutes (or seconds!) of unrelated edits elsewhere; it's clear no WP:BEFORE checks were even considered. That's certainly disruptive, in my book. I think it's a matter of looking at what the actual effect is - are they follow-the-leader !votes, or trend-setting !votes? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the "Deletionist" in your crosshairs is a mirror of Eastmain. I'm away for a while so I won't be following up immediately but thanks for that. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, nobody is in my crosshairs, but particular disruptive nominations certainly are. The difference is that contributing to a discussion isn't inherently disruptive and both "keep" and "delete" are viable options in any discussion (even if some people set aside logic and common sense to make their contributions). But nominating something (or multiple somethings) for deletion in a disruptive manner is inherently disruptive. There are arguments to avoid to be aware of before making a contribution to a deletion discussion, there are mandated requirements before making a deletion nomination. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Stalwart, you rock

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

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For magnificent research skills. Literaturegirl (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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

@Literaturegirl: sorry, caught up with real-world stuff. No need to pay for that editing. I did it because it seemed easy enough to do and was an obvious improvement to the article. If you'd like to, feel free to make a donation to a relevant charity or community organisation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Proxy deletions, another opinion please?

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

@Yae4: that one is a little different because it hasn't been prod'd for deletion, or submitted to WP:AFD. Where deletion (or not) has already been determined, a move back to draft-space is inappropriate. This move to article-space was the inappropriate move in this instance. As a draft, it can be submitted for Articles for Creation. It has been already and the submission was declined. Do some more work to get it to the point where it is ready and submit it again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Water cooler talk

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