User talk:Stvfetterly

Home

Talk Page

Contributions

Archives

Subpages

Guestbook

Hi. When you recently edited Censor bars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PIPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stvfetterly. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the

here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

Hi. When you recently edited Bare legs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wimbeldon and Trunks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got a bit grumpy over this article. I don't even think it's that important that it is not merged into the main IRT one. What annoys me is that we have the rules set up in such a way that very minor (e.g.) sportsmen, actors, and musicians can pass the required tests on the basis of one or two articles in local media but others who are far better known (and hence likely to be looked up) can fail. Which is why I used the term 'wiki-lawyering' as it seems that strict application of the detailed rules accentuates what seems to me an illogical way to arrange things. PRL42 (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've been known to get a little too worked up over pretty miniscule stuff myself. All that I was trying to argue was that the History Network can't be considered an unbiased reference if it has a vested interest in a person. The article has been improved with several more independent references now, so all's good!--StvFetterly(Edits) 12:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.60 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Stvfetterly. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated DR goes to Wikimania! 02:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks for helping with restoring the cat to the SCUM Manifesto article, I introduced it and have tried restoring it a number of times without success. It just seems so obvious and there are about 3 justifications for it's inclusion, I can't understand why it keeps being deleted and the editor in question has shown some strange behaviour over at AFD as well. Please keep an eye on things, also, looking at the VAW category it is likely to belong in the Andy Warhol article and I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the affected party about multiple reverts (since he violated

WP:3RR) and have explained my reasoning for the category on the SCUM Manifesto article talk page. I'm not sure about adding Warhol to the VAM category . . . that seems a little less cut and dried to me at the moment.--StvFetterly(Edits) 18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok thanks, it's invaluable to have input from an uninvolved party. There is now a vote on the issue in talk page so you may want to formalise your position there. I should probably add there there is "history" between DC and myself which may or may not be a factor in this issue, his most recent edit summary suggesting the former being the case--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history should be irrelevant if you bring forth good points (which you have to this point). --StvFetterly(Edits) 19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well when a say "history", I mean history and ongoing issues. Once again thanks for your input. It's incredible to think that were you not involved we'd almost certainly be looking at a "no consensus" on something so blatantly obvious.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

The article Adoration tomato has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough sources exist to establish notability under

WP:GNG

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

		The Martial Arts Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your outstanding contributions and creations of Martial Art related articles. talk) 11:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply ]