User talk:Stalwart111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Now that I nominating Czar at RFA and NorthAmerica1000 is close to RFA as well, lets make this 4 RFAs in one week. You are among the most well-reasoned and respected in AFD and you got a all-around editing ability that makes you well-qualified for the job and I don't mind nominating you. We need as much help with AFDs as we can. Please accept :) Secret account 16:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Secret. I certainly appreciate the compliment but my commentary with regard to adminship at my userpage remains unchanged. I enjoy contributing to AFDs as a non-admin, not least of all for "too many cooks" reasons. Many AFD regulars have gone on to become admins (many with my support) but I feel we still need a core group to help build that often elusive consensus that others are then asked to interpret. As you and others have proven, adminship doesn't prevent contributions in that regard but it's more a feeling that I "know my place" (or something more abstract). Again, I appreciate the compliment and will strongly support both Czar and NorthAmerica1000. Stlwart111 04:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Lennox[edit]

I added some references to Randy Lennox and removed the excessively promotional text. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Lennox. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eastmain. You did a great job - would happily have changed my declared position had I had a chance to do so. Keep up the great work! Stlwart111 07:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your question...[edit]

...yes, having a colosal raging asshole lying about you in an AfD because you've had the temerity to attempt to salvage an article is really infuriating. I know some of his behaviors is standard for deletionist editors, and there's a bit of a tendency amongst the righteous to adopt any means if it supports the cause (WP:FTN has some imperfect moments, but he goes beyond that into the deeply toxic). Artw (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You compared his analysis (however unfair) of your editing history to the actions of misogynistic rape enthusiasts. There's hyperbole and then there's that. BlueSalix and I have had our run-ins and I know he can be a dick. But countering dickishness with stuff like that is just stupid. Stlwart111 07:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The misogynistic rape enthusiasts, while unpleasant, never slandered me or made up elaborate conspiracy theorys about me. In that they have the edge on him. Artw (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, in general, WP:UNCIVIL would make them back down rather than causing them to double down. Which is probably the ocre of why you defend him: he's an angry bulldog, point him in the direction of an article and he'll be so unpleasant everyone backs off. But long term such behavior is not an asset to Wikipedia. Artw (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Starting on me is ill-advised; I didn't "defend" him, I don't now and I didn't "point him" at anything. He identified an article about a subject that he thought didn't meet our inclusion criteria. He found another (connected) article that he thought didn't meet our inclusion criteria. Given our history, I would ordinarily give it no thought and simply walk away. I have no desire to antagonise. But I'm a regular and DRV and some of the nonsense there convinced me I should participate. The only "conspiracy theories" in that AFD discussion are from the same person who made the same outlandish claims at WP:DRV - that a perfectly ordinary deletion discussion (of which there are dozens each day) was somehow an attempt to "censor" the "truth". The proponents of both articles responded with three separate pointy and ironically pointless ANI threads, all of which were quickly shut down, including yours (with some rather appropriate advice, I might add). The suggestion that his actions have dissuaded others from contributing is simply false on the face of it - there have been more contributions since. Stlwart111 08:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Stalwart111. I'm about to be indefinitely blocked for my comments in the AfD to ArtW [guess it proves the adage, "four ANIs are a charm" ;)], so I'm just making the rounds saying thanks for the support in the last few days on the various fringe theories topics that we've been dealing with. I appreciate your work in helping to maintain the line of sanity on WP and hope you keep it up in the future, especially since the number of editors willing to tackle the best "defended/entrenched" of these topics is dwindling. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)