Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shakespeare21 (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 13 September 2013 (→Inslaw: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nice things from other people

Luis G. Jimenez-Arias

Dear Stalwart111, I request your reconsideration to avoid removing the article Luis G. Jimenez-Arias of wikipedia. This is my first article on wikipedia and our goal is to give out about the doings of prominent bioethicist in Costa Rica, especially in the environmental field,Costa Rica a small country fighting for environmental protection. The author in question is a pioneer in this field. The article has been improved and new references have been included. Your help will be greatly appreciated.Lalo3767 (talk)

Wogvilles

Cat of the Greek one now empty so a speedy should remove. Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree - have responded on your talk page. Thanks! Stalwart111 10:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki SPAM?

Not sure what to make of or how to respond to the message left on my talk page today by Vicki breazeale any suggestions? Tyros1972 Talk 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea mate! The message is addressed to Orange Mike (an admin). Maybe she sent it to you by mistake? She seems to have something to do with Vicki Breazeale and it looks like she is trying to start an article about the group she founded. COI everywhere! Stalwart111 23:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate for clearing that up, I will basically say what you told me as I had no idea! lol Tyros1972 Talk 12:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Stalwart111 00:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Norman Sjoman

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)

Reply at Talk:Accenture

Hey Stalwart111, in case you hadn't seen, I wanted to let you know that I've replied to the most recent round of comments from you and FeralOink over at Talk:Accenture. It looks to me like we've largely reached consensus about the remaining issues, so if you have time to take a look and implement the changes, I'd appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Powell-Peralta

Hello Stalwart, You recently reverted my addition to the Powell-Peralta page. I'd been reminiscing about the era, and noticed that all the work I did with Stacey Peralta had been miscredited ('Dunlop' not Dunlap on imdb pages) or overlooked (like the P-P page) on the web. That's why I added my own name. I did three videos with these guys, not one as you suggested, and worked closely with the director on Future Primitive. Back then, it was a rather loose tribe, to be sure, except for the Caballero-McGill-Mountain-Hawk core, but those of us who worked the videos were certainly on the team. I take your point about conflict of interest; perhaps someone else will fix the omission later on. For me the edit was just a trip down memory lane, recalling a happy moment of life. Sincerely, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdunlap (talk • contribs) 06:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Stalwart111 07:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

if you might...

At the deletion discussion about the article The Pixar Theory, the topic seems to have met the GNG though a lot of (recent) coverage.... BUT my own research indicates the the base concept of "The Pixar Universe" has been recognized in media at least as early as 2003, making this later "theory" notable only in it making enough recent waves to be considered a "viral meme". Toward addressing the earlier concept, I began work on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe, but upon further reflection, perhaps best that my little sourced article be folded into the main topic Pixar so that we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? And would you care to assist? Thanks, Schmidt, 23:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Stalwart111 07:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for you fantastic work on Catacomb saints! Thanks, The Anome (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Query regarding "royal houses"...

Thanks for alerting me to this - it's the same problem again. It's all made up. If you tried to verify any of those references, you'd fail - it's just bonkers. I rolled it back and blocked them all - please feel free to verify, maybe I missed something. --Joy (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work! I'll reply on your talk page too. Stalwart111 12:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Catacomb saints

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 221. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mandarax, thanks for your note. I hardly ever nominate DYKs so I'm not really sure how to fix what I've done. Should I just edit the hook I have there or should I propose an alternate? Stalwart111 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to edit the existing hook, especially since nobody has started a review yet. You may simply shorten it, or replace it entirely, as you wish. And, of course, you can also supply an alt if you desire. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Done - it's now 186 characters. Hopefully that complies. Stalwart111 23:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes to text

You changed the text that I made to clarify some incorrect information on the biography. The information that you put back in to the biography has a reference which clearly shows that the Misplaced Pages information is incorrect. For example, it states the Delta Russia Fund had over $500 million under management. The correct figure, according to the reference, is $120 million. Furthermore, the reference does not support that Dmitriev was co-managing director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare21 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Inslaw

Historically, Inslaw was referred to as the Inslaw Scandal. If you Google "Inslaw", for example, there are a number of references as the "Inslaw Scandal"...even if you look it up on Wikimedia you will find the same. The text which you took out is not from a blog...it is the federal testimony from the Attorney General's Office of the United States Government. Cloherty's connection is Inslaw is significant because she was the main investor in Inslaw and was investigated by the Federal Prosecutor for giving false testimony in this case. If you read the transcript to the end, you would have seen that what was updated was accurate and clearly sourced. Therefore, I have put back my original change.