This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

history, culture and politics
Thank you for quality articles and contributions where history, culture and politics meet, such as Catacomb saints and Antonio Barberini, for caring for deletions, for working towards "hostility will disappear quietly", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt, what a lovely message! There are a good number of editors on your recipient list for whom I have a lot of respect and to think someone might consider me among their number is a great honour. Again, thanks! Stalwart111 09:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, - please note that I only "inherited" the idea (started in 2007, long before my time here) from precious others, and happily continue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And you look to be doing a fine job! I'll be sure to bring editors to your attention in the future! Stalwart111 11:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to disagree with arbcom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Occasionally. Stalwart111 07:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

One man's "battleground" is another woman's discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha. Exactly. Stalwart111 09:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been struggling with nationalist edit warring over these two articles for a couple of years. I can't see how they cannot be historically (and prehistorically probably) related, but can't find sources - although this might be a terminology problem. I did find [theswastika00wilsuoft.pdf] this morning, a paper over a century old but with some interesting illustrations. I presume you've seen my links to Google images at the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Doug, yeah, I'm new to the whole concept but I can see you've been keeping an eye on them for a while. I don't think there is any possibility that similar symbols with similar meanings developed independently of each other in the same region. That said, I have also been unable to find reliable sources that specifically connect the two (the other being the Georgian equivalent). Nor have I found any specific links with other similar symbols with similar meanings (like the swastika) or any of the flower-like eternity symbols associated with Sikhism or Hinduism. Like you, I'm not convinced they are necessarily the same, but I can't help but think there is some historical connection. Zero connectivity seems as unlikely as pre-European-settlement Australian Aborigines randomly selecting a wooden cross as their symbol for resurrection or salvation. But it's the old verification not truth (or, in this case, logic) that prevails. Stalwart111 07:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

	Protector of online dignity
	Thank you for swiftly stepping in, unexpectedly and unasked. You restored my embarrassing editing dysPHunction to full functionality. FeralOink (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all! Was an easy fix (though it wasn't too hard to interpret your comments anyway!) Cheers, Stalwart111 00:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stal,

Yet again we cross paths. This time it is Norman Sjoman. I attempted a salvage job, now under AfD. Perhaps you'd take another look? Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on the fence. It's obviously a much better article than when I supported deletion during the first AFD, but I'm not entirely convinced the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. I suppose it depends on how much value you place on bureaucracy for the sake or bureaucracy. But in my mind, overturning consensus after 3-4 months is likely to rub people up the wrong way without some formalised process. Many would argue, I think, that it should have gone to DRV where the consensus to delete could be endorsed and a new consensus developed to allow the article to be recreated. I suppose I see DRV as underutilised so I can't see the harm in sending something there for the sake of keeping everyone happy. But yeah, I don't personally have a problem with you recreating the article - good on you for giving it another go. I'll have another look at the sources. Stalwart111 00:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is still open. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? I was distracted by some other things and so didn't follow the debate. I assumed I had missed my opportunity - silly me. I'll have a look if there is anything I can contribute at this late stage. Stalwart111 09:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For Keegan Sauder—here is the Talk page where I have posted a new section. Thanks kindly Stalwart.--Soulparadox (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded there and started a new set of draft notability guidelines. Stalwart111 06:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stalwart111, I am trying to clean up a Wiki page on Adrian Parr. The history page reports you "tagged multiple issues" in January 2013. I'm new to Wiki editing- Can you point me in the right direction in order to clean it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattierg (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Stalwart111 06:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I do know her, but believe that I could potentially provide a [more] impartial edit, as I do not know her well. Ultimately I am interested in cleaning up the page because it is being referred to as a source of educational information to others- by others- (colleagues, etc) in the academic world. I am new to wiki edits- so I am trying to learn the ropes about appropriate content as well as technical/formatting issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.43.105 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stalwart111 can you take a look at Jagger Eaton and see if you can help clean up some of the issues noted. I'm not sure where to go.

Also I assume this wouldn't be accepted as a citation for the one missing citation but I can't seem to find a better one. Option 1 or 2nd option

Thanks. Labeach2002 (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned it up and responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 06:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your help. Labeach2002 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Stalwart111 14:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey again Stalwart111, just following up again about the Principal subsidiaries section over at Accenture. Do you think that you'll be able to implement the change that you and FeralOink agreed on? I'm happy to reach out to other editors if you don't have time, but since you were part of forming the consensus on what to do there, I don't want to bring other folks in without giving you a go at it. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Sorry, yes, have been busy and have been limited to editing from my tablet rather than my PC so more complex edits have been put on the back-burner. I'll try to make some time to get it done - very happy to do so, anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 14:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks so much! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, there were just a handful of unsourced edits made to the Accenture article—when you head over there, can you take a look and see if you think they should be reverted? They all look pretty bad to me. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is also  Done.

Hey Stalwart111, not sure if you saw or not, but I posted a few more changes that I'm hoping to see made to the Accenture article over at Talk:Accenture. An editor named Gigs weighed in, but I don't agree with his assessment of the changes, so I'm hoping to solicit an informal third opinion. If you have a moment, do you think you could take a look and weigh in? Thanks, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey again Stalwart, I've responded to you over at Talk:Accenture about the Principal subsidiaries issue. Your take seems spot on to me. Similarly, I agree with your comment about the Tiger Woods wording. Do you think you can make the changes you suggested? I'll also nudge FeralOink and Gigs to see if they have any more thoughts. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stalwart, just wanted to follow up and see if you'd seen my latest reply over at Talk:Accenture. It looks like we've reached consensus about the Principal subsidiaries section, so I'm hoping you or FeralOink can go ahead and make that update. We also still haven't settled on what to do about Tiger Woods' role with the company, so any other comments you have there would be appreciated. Thanks again for your help on this! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, I wanted to follow up with you about the two remaining issues over at Accenture. Since there's broad agreement between you and FeralOink about what to do with the Principal subsidiaries section, I'm hoping one of you could go ahead and make that change. Any thoughts about what to do with the Tiger Woods stuff? That seems to be stymied at the moment and I'm not sure how best to get things moving again. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is now  Done—thanks again for all of your help on this article! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 12:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WOW!!!! That cleanup you did on the Philip Guarino page made it 100% better! I want to really thank you, like night and day! I will keep working to find my references tonight. There is another Obituary for Philip besides the one listed that is a major source. User:Dr. B. Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No problem. Stalwart111 04:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is rife with errors. The obituaries confirm he died in 1993 and one says he was born in Pennsylvania. Our article says he was born in Sicily and died in 2006. I think some of Michele Sindona's biographical details are blended in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Cullen, you're absolutely right! It still needs a lot more work. Thanks for pointing out some of the major issues. Stalwart111 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I was about to ping you with a "thanks", but then I reached the last sentence. I'm not sure who 'she' is. If 'she' is a particular editor, then, IMO, your contribution lost overall impact because it ended up with a single particular editor vaguely referenced. I really think you were speaking in an overall sense. In other words, too much of this ring around the mulberry bush has involved complaints about particular editors, and in contrast your comment addressed the overall concerns quite well. (I hope you see what I mean.) Can you clarify? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, you know the history of this as well as anyone. A group of editors started an effort to add reliable, independent sources to sometimes entirely unsourced BLPs (so poorly sourced that some were put up for deletion). One editor has objected to that effort (later joined by others) because she objects to what independent, reliable sources say about certain subjects. You and the others involved have managed to stick (broadly) to the principles of WP:BRD. The discussions could do with some cooler heads but her "contribution" was another thing all together. She never had any intention of contributing in a collegial manner. I was one of the few people who defended her when others called for sanctions at ANI, suggesting that her misquoting and ad-hom were a matter of mistake and frustration rather than nastiness and bad faith. How I grew to regret that defence when I was the subject of those same efforts for a month afterward and eventually walked away. Without her nonsensical side-tracking and nasty bullying, discussions in this topic area can return to what they were earlier this year. I suppose I could have said "they" or "some editors" meaning anyone who supports her position but realistically, nobody else fits the description so that would be unfair. Stalwart111 04:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. I know that more than one editor uses the feminine pronoun, and your comments actually apply to several of "them". And as most of us riding this merry-go-round already agree about the basics of WP civility (whether we comply 100% or not), I don't think singling out anyone is going to help. I'd change the "she" to "some editors" and leave it at that. (In the meantime, I've reactivated my ((user frustrated)) template.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Srich, I think you are very confused. You stated on user Carolmooredc's talk page that you basically agree with all of her complaints, most of which were personal attacks on the character and motives of SPECIFICO and me. Now you come here and praise the remarks of Stalwart, which were clearly sympathetic toward the efforts of SPECIFICO and me in improving the LvMI pages. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget, Steeletrap, that S. Rich started in this topic area working with SPECIFICO (and then yourself) and though you didn't always agree, there was far more agreement then than there is now with Carolmooredc in the mix. Carol is the worst sort of bully - she attacks others, makes voluntary editing here a misery and then plays dumb or (worse) plays the victim. She has long claimed victim status on behalf of various unsourced BLP subjects - suggesting she is "defending" BLPs from "attack" while actually just preventing the addition of independent reliable sources. Largely, your disagreement with S. Rich seems to be about tone, interpretation and the reliability of sources. In many ways, your arguments with S. Rich are advanced, academic and the result of almost 12 months of collegial editing; you have cleaned the clothes and you are now ironing out the final wrinkles (always the hardest bit). Carol longs for the good old days when the clothes were still dirty. Where S. Rich and I strongly disagree is on his description of one of Carol's sycophantic thought-sheep as having "defended the wiki". That made me giggle. Given the lack of disparity in their incoherent "arguments", defending one is akin to defending the other. I've made the mistake of drinking the sympathy-for-Carol kool-aid before and it left a bitter taste in my mouth. Stalwart111 06:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

[Another insert] In the ANI we are concerned about, "she" started off well with her review of the past behaviors. I think her hope was to get something done, anything, that would put an end to this hopeless and feckless bickering. And she did a good job in doing a recap of past problems. (Also I agree with some of her criticisms of editor behavior.) But I made the mistake of adding a "Hear, hear." Why? Well, the ANI was doomed from the start. But I foolishly thought it would remain on-topic. So with this (and other) ANI-type discussions in mind, I think it should be shut down. Rather than engaging in these endless, ill-defined maelstrom discussions, my belief is that focused BRDs and RFAs are the best way to get these editing issues resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, that's not a "review" so much as a composite of her (mostly spurious) noticeboard posts, many of which were specifically designed (as you know) to avoid ongoing collegial discussion at various article talk pages where her focus on editors rather than content was getting her nowhere. Realistically, the only way this is going to be resolved is with Carol (she not f**king Voldemort) being blocked or banned and that's not going to happen while people keep lining up to get into the Carol pity-party. I sincerely hope something like NE Ent's proposal gets adopted. Carol and her sheep will last about a day, which I estimate is as long as they could conduct themselves on a LvMI/Austrian/economics article talk page without resorting to ad-hom or personal attacks. Stalwart111 08:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I've changed it to "some have" because her MO is to not read comments properly before responding/quoting anyway, so she'll likely not even notice my not-so-subtle references to her. Stalwart111 04:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stalwart. Thanks for your clear-minded comments on all these dismal disputes. One of the factors which has sustained and amplified these disturbances over the past month or two has been Srich's strategy of behind-the-scenes encouragement and enabling of the worst of the B/C (Binksternet and Carol) behavior. You seem to have noticed some of that. It takes various forms, some obvious and some mind-bogglingly roundabout and crafty. Srich has got the itch -- to be voted a WP Admin (it's self-stated on his user page) and he appears to be floundering to and fro seeking to build a core constituency. More likely he's doing the opposite, by not-so-subtle goading, posturing, and obstinate linking to policies he neither understands nor applies to the content he purports to advocate. Anyway, thanks for your attention to these numbing go-rounds. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. - Here's a case in point good for a chuckle: Look at this little exchange. It concerns Srich defending content doggedly reinserted a dozen times by two edit warriors, both of whom received blocks. The content in question is unsourced and primary sourced Misesian fringe theory. [3]. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I've never really understood the mindset of those who want to be admins, beyond those quite obviously on a power-trip (though they rarely pass WP:RFA and I wouldn't think S. Rich is in that category anyway). My experience is that people who have spent their life "in the services" are generally the first to volunteer for such things and those who have spent their life "administering justice" come a close second. S. Rich, as a retired JAG, falls neatly into both categories. Don't underestimate the gravity-like appeal of pure, inexplicable volunteerism. I'd be inclined to think that rather than "seeking to build a core constituency", S. Rich is instead simply doing his best not to offend people. Cynical if in the context of a "campaign" but admirable otherwise. Every argument needs a Switzerland. The best way to assure a better result at RFA is to avoid ANI altogether. Adminship here is famously "no big deal" which stands in stark contrast to the hypocritical, posturing, self-importance of ANI on its best days. Stalwart111 01:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I prefer to volunteer at the local schools here. Challenging, but there are often tangible results. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I will offer a very public thank you, Stalwart, for your comments. I don't know that I've "administered justice" in my career. Rather, I hope, I have promoted the rule of law, which includes upholding due process. WRT WP, I've challenged editors to edit in an even-handed manner. (And I've objected to simply labeling theories as "fringe" because doing so does not comply with V or NPOV, etc.) I regret that Specifico no longer thinks that I am even-handed in my editing efforts or a wise one. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Administering justice" would be everyone from Justices of the Supreme Court down to parking inspectors in my book, so you'd qualify. I think part of the problem is adherence to the WP:BRD-cycle which I alluded to in my ANI post. We're often too quick to forget that BRD does still include "revert" as a normal and accepted part of the editing process. We "B" and then "R", especially in contentious topic areas, knowing we have the willingness and capacity to move on to "D". You've both demonstrated a capacity to boldly edit and revert each other and a capacity to discuss the issues. Hell, you've been doing so for more than a year. Okay, sometimes it could do with a little less "B" and a little more "D" but the underlying process is still being upheld. The negative influence here, from my perspective, is those editors who don't have either the willingness or the capacity to engage in "D" at all, except with regard to the personal attributes of other editors and their ideas. Stalwart111 03:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I made a series of Bold edits. And they were reverted. So I opened Discussions at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Friedman personal blog material (no responses so far), Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Callahan personal blog material .28BRD.29 (MM responded), Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Goldberg.27s opinions .28BRD.29 (MM responded), Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Rockwell denial of .22right wing.22 (reverted? I'm not checking, but no discussion followed). I tagged the two blog items as SPS. I opened a discussion about the off-topic nature of some section. I tagged the section as off-topic. And then Mark opens the ANI. I do not comment as the ANI is opened. But, thirteen minutes after the ANI is opened, Specifico says I'm at "4RR and counting". And says I'm "inflaming the situation". How? By, opening the Discussion threads? (Discussions which he had not engaged in.) Well, more ANI discussion ensues – in response to the suggestion that the article be rolled back prior to my edits, and I defend my edits. Specifico's response? I am a "true edit warrior." Forgive me, Stalwart, for using your talk page to defend myself. Alas. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC) PS, Stalwart, I welcome you to revert this "rant" in accordance with TPO. I've said my piece and have my peace. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It's okay. I tend to think these discussions are better had in the quiet cul-de-sac of an editor talk page rather than the sh*t-storm superhighway that is ANI. I suspect editors are often goaded into more vitriolic posts/responses there than they would normally issue in the course of collegial discussion. The alternative is to post something that sounds mundane (but is important to the project) only to have it ignored for 36 hours and then archived. I'm not suggesting that was necessarily the genesis of SPECIFICO's comments at ANI but they do seem at least slightly more vitriolic than he would normally afford to a discussion like that. I've looked at the recent history of Ludwig von Mises Institute and without going edit-by-edit, I can see a few points where each of you should probably have taken a step back and had a chat about it rather than continuing to revert. Not only do I suspect you know that now with the benefit of hindsight, I suspect you probably knew so at the time with edit summaries like "again, remove" and "for the second time, remove". Probably not your finest hour; nor his. Stalwart111 06:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, here is a bit of detail related to one part of my effort (and frustration). At this diff [4] I removed a personal blog comment by David Friedman. This material was restored here: [5]. I then opened a discussion here: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Friedman personal blog material. And I tagged the particular blog comment as ((SPS)) here: [6]. The SPS tag (along with other changes) was removed here: [7]. I restored the SPS tags here: [8]. So now 6 days have past, but nothing has been posted in the discussion other than my initial comment. So where are we in the Bold–Revert–open Discussion–Tag for Discussion–see Tag removed–restore Tag–and then not see any further discussion after the opening remark cycle (better known as the "B-R-oD-TfD-Tr-sTr-rT-atnsafdator" cycle)? Should I wait till the ANI is resolved? Do I post another comment in talk? Do I wait? Will some other editor come in and do the edit which I feel is proper? (Proper, as in remove the personal blog material.) Do I post an RfC? Do I make the edit? – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether you wait until the conclusion of the ANI thread (and its many sub-threads) is up to you but it does seem like others are doing exactly that. It might seem like poor form if you boldly edit while attention is turned to ANI. That said, the intention of some there is clearly to shut down debate (by whatever means) rather than to contribute to debate. Stalwart111 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

On another ANI-related note

You've convinced me that sanctions are not only appropriate but necessary, in light of the conduct of Carol and Binksternet. Steeletrap (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have also reverted all the edits made by the new sock of LPC to article space (see here)

The trouble is that he often creates two socks at the same time. So if you see any more similar editing by another new editor let me know. -- PBS (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Both these users previously posted on the talk page for the article in question in the last couple of days - I was merely letting them know that it had been sent for AFD.Garyvines (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• If by the 'canvassing' comment (at Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic Environment‎), you are referring to my comments to Iain Stuart‎ and PeterMarquisKyle, these were the only Wikipedia editors I contacted, and both had previously provided their own opinions on Talk:Historic Environment, so I was in no way influencing them. I know both people as humans, and you might see that we all edit with our real names rather than anonymous nicknames. we also provide . This is therefore a discussion between likeminded people on a shared topic of value - perhaps not appropriate to Wikipedia talk pages, but farm less vituperative than much of the comment that goes on. Also I started by asking for some help from Randykitty, and it is his/her authoritative and arrogant stance in objecting to every proposal that has inflamed the discussion in the first place.Garyvines (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stalwart111, Could you help out here—User:Johnmoor/Randy Gage draft—please? Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Tomas 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/Andrew Tomas 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. jps (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stalwart, hope you're well. You previously helped me place an improved version of the article for Pierre Nanterme. Recently, an IP address made a couple of edits to the article, adding in the middle name "Mariano" for Mr. Nanterme (edit 1, edit 2). However, this is incorrect, and clearly not supported by the sources in the article. Could you take a look and see about reverting the changes? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris. That's an easy one so I've made that edit. I've also made sure the article is now on my Watchlist so hopefully I'll have a better chance of picking up on silly stuff like that. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much—I really appreciate the help! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

On 9 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kit houses in Michigan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that kit houses manufactured in Michigan were so popular that by 1918, houses from one Bay City company accounted for 2.4% of all housing starts in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kit houses in Michigan. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 17:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Having participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vert skating, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Giannoni, where I raise some general questions about the topic. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stalwart, I hadn't been back to the Philip Guarino page in a while and just noticed that you voted to save the page. I want to sincerely thank you for your help in fixing that page and saving it. All the positive credit goes to you as you did a major overhaul to fix it. Also, thank you for teaching me how to write a Wiki article properly. Here's one first-timer who will continue trying to write new articles because of your compassion.

You are an amazing guy and a great Editor and you have my respect and appreciation.

Sincerely Yours, Dr. B. Jones (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your very nice note. There are still a few things to be fixed but it is looking better. I'll continue to keep an eye on it. Stalwart111 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)