Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:20, 3 May 2013

Nice things from other people

Camille Saroyan

Camille Saroyan is a fictional person from a TV show. The deletion of the article on her should not have been put in the biographies category. I moved it to fiction and the arts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

All good - responded here. Stalwart111 08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Vatican City

Good to meet you, and it was fun seeing the additions add up on the 'Index of Vatican City-related articles'. I was reading the ones you added, thanks for the education. It's been nice adding the Vatican City topics template to articles, as well as the Sistine Chapel template (which wasn't on 'Vatican Museums'!). Please have a look at the Sistine Chapel template and see if it would fit anywhere else, possibly on all the pages listed on it! (I'll look at those later). Are there anymore Vatican City page? Again, good to meet you. Randy Kryn 13:04 3 April 2013 (UTC)

lol Thanks for the kind words, and that's the first barnstar or anything I've "gotten" here. Very appreciated. Yeah, I seem enthused about the new Pope, the first one in my life I actually seem to like, so it got me adding data on his new residence, which skipped me into the Index and the templates. I've found adding lists to "See also's" provide a good link which is used by many readers. Time consuming but rewarding. And for some reason our exchange reminds me to mainspace an stub article I've done on one of Martin Luther King's speeches, which I'll do now. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 13:14 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoo. You've done some very nice work. I'll give a closer read to the Gallery of maps next log on, it's something I haven't heard of. Signing off now, but I want to get back to you on your articles and the Sistine stuff. I haven't checked, but is the template on all the artwork pages listed?? More later. Randy Kryn 13:26 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just read your Carlo Rossetti article, and I realize I know nothing of that period of history (I'm not a studied historian of catholic topics), and never heard of the "First Bishop's War" - my first thought "There were more of them?" Nice work! I'll do more with the "Sistine Chapel" template, it's a good one and should be shown more. Just put it on the "Vatican City" page, which of all things didn't have it. Into the mines... Randy Kryn 23:03 3 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. I'll leave this for you if you don't mind. The very first sentence of "Sistine Chapel" says its in the Apostolic Palace, so I popped a SC template on Apostolic Palace, but saw the article doesn't mention the chapel. And this link says] it's a self-contained building. Can you take this one, as it's out of my knowledge level - it seems the Sistine Chapel page is wrong right in the first sentence!

Hello, and I promise not to monopolize your talk page today. One thing though, the Apostolic Palace page doesn't mention the Sistine Chapel as being there (neither does the Sistine Chapel ceiling page), and you'd think it'd be trumpeted with pics and tickets being sold just to view the page. Nothing. Tumbleweeds. The only place I could find on wikipedia that the Sistine Chapel is in the Apostolic Palace is in the very first sentence in the Sistine Chapel article!! Methinks a mystery brews. Maybe you or another regular on the Catholic pages can dig just a little into this and find the place (I've never been to the Vatican, and maps show it as outside the Apostolic Palace). Am semi-proud to say I put the Sistine Chapel template on the 'Michaelangelo' page yesterday, which, I've heard from unreliable sources, has stopped him from turning over in his grave. Enjoy, and if you get as far as the Sistine Chapel ceiling, bring watercolors and chalk. Randy Kryn 11:42 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have substantially changed the Sistine Chapel page to reflect the truth of the matter, and now wikipedia can finally take its place among the great encyclopedias of its age. At least you and I have more of an education about the Chapel and the Palace (now there's a name for a movie starring Anne Hathaway and some interchangable-boy-hunk as the priest "The Chapel and the Palace"). I like the original sistine chapel better, it looked more ancient yet comfortable. Now, from the overhead you found, the outside of the palace attachments all seem to be cookie-cutter. "They" likely attached it and changed the exterior to control access (and to sort out the paying customers form the riff-raff). Thanks, that was quite an adventure. On a boring serious note, you may be right about an update to the Palace article to let people know that the Sistine is accessible through an entrance there. I'll gladly not edit it, as you have much more knowledge of the page's architecture and the Palace's architecture. I added quite a few more items in the "Index" yesterday, but my favorite was putting the Sistine template on the Michaelangelo and Botticeili pages (and a couple of the "minor" painters involved with the chapel's art as well). With all this going on maybe I'll have to take a trip to Vatican City and stand in one of those long lines for four hours....well, maybe not. Oh, another serious note, I haven't looked if the gigapans of the artwork in St. Peters and the Raphael Rooms, etc., is on any of the external links. Do you know? If not, then those are definite additions! Thanks for the data on the chapel. Randy Kryn 11:23 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thought you'd like an update. I put that great old drawing of the Sistine Chapel you left on my talk page on the Sistine chapel page. And added a lot more links to the Index page. It may be getting closer to completion (maybe you and others can take a look at it and see if there are any missed links. Would 'Papal states' qualify for that page, I'm not sure.) We've done good work together the last few days, nice meeting you. Randy Kryn 13:08 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm back! Have still been working on the Vatican City Index, and between you and I we've expanded it from 26 articles to 116 articles. Some of those are stubs, but because the Index is now linked to every page hopefully the increased number of people seeing it will encourage some to add to some of the pages. A question: On my journey to add articles I've come across many categories related to Vatican City. Since templates are on the Index page, is it wikipedian-legal to add a section of 'Categories' and list them as well (not linking the Index to them, but listing them in alphabetical order under their own section). Those are my questions one. And thanks again for popping in that great artwork of the Sistine, hopefully it will stay on the Sistine chapel page for a few millenium. Randy Kryn 15:34 11-4-'13

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Stalwart111. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000 18:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And a much-deserved barnstar was given out for that very friendly invitation. Many thanks. Stalwart111 08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for telling me about New Post going to the bottom Lukong15 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Very nice of you - hope you continue to contribute. Stalwart111 08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I guess its a lot to read?

Could you somehow have my accounted deleted? I needed to know a bit more then comeback and answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukong15 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Was not a problem - look forward to working with you. Stalwart111 08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User page draft will be deleted

Per the discussion it was determined that the efforts that you participated in at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia had lead to the conclusion that there was not enough content to overcome WP:DICDEF and so instead of an article, the term will be a redirect to Wiktionary.

I will be requesting a deletion of the sandbox draft that you contributed to. Please feel free to contact an admin to have it restored and moved to your user space if you wish to continue working. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

All sorted, and with thanks (once again) to TRPOD for his work. Stalwart111 08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Help from New User

Hello Stalwart. Thank you for greeting me to Misplaced Pages (I am the one who nominated the Stephan Kinsella page for deletion). I hope you don't mind this request for help, and hope it doesn't clutter your talk page!

For years I have been concerned that the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article was not written from a NPOV. Specifically, it omits statements Hoppe made in Democracy: The God That Failed that have widely been perceived to be anti-gay. I added a section on the Hans-Hermann Hoppe page entitled "Anti-Gay Views and Allegations of Racism." I ask that you read the citations and let me know if you think it's fair/relevant, and (if so) please draw some attention to the page to prevent vandalism which has (in my judgment) happened quite often to the Misplaced Pages pages of Mises Institute libertarians over the years.

Full disclosure: I am working on a Master's thesis on fringe political movement's in the United States and, in the process, have developed a negative view of Mises Institute libertarians (such as Hoppe and Kinsella). Does that mean I shouldn't be commenting on these articles?

Edit: It just got reverted. I am honestly perplexed as to how that's irrelevant, but will not get into an edit war. But here is a link to the original edits I made. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&oldid=550859252#Anti-Gay_Views_and_Allegations_of_Racism

Steeletrap (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All good - responded here. Stalwart111 12:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Watch out for WP:CHEESY remarks, you might be taken on a trip to the motorbike shed! – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha - well played! Stalwart111 03:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, my independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements) has led me to be highly concerned with the NPOV and (in some cases) notability of many (probably most) of the Misplaced Pages articles of Ludwig von Mises Institute scholars. This is a big project -- and given my nature as a noob who is strongly biased against them, I may not be the optimal person to undertake it -- but would you mind suggesting to wiser (and more level-headed) people than I that they look into this? Despite my bias, I believe that on strictly factual grounds that it's pretty clear that the articles depart from NPOV. (For example, the piece on Mises Institute fellow Gary North refers to him as an "economist" despite no formal economic training and makes no mention of the fact that he has -- in numerous credible secondary sources (e.g., http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/public_stoning%3A_not_just_for_the_taliban_anymore and (you need to answer a question to read this page) http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning) -- been widely criticized for advocated that non-violent people (such as homosexuals and blasphemers of the Christian God) be (literally) stoned to death. Other pieces (not all) show virtually no evidence of notability. I have already expressed my view regarding the notability of Stephan Kinsella. But consider in this regard the page Burton Blumert, who lacks any citations other than those from the Mises Institute and an obituary. If you agree with me that this might be a problem, is there any Misplaced Pages "board" you could refer to to check these articles for NPOV (and when needed, remove them)? Steeletrap (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: On a related note, I edited the Wikipediaentry on Robert Murphy (like Hoppe and Kinsella, he is a Mises Institute Senior Fellow), which was previously virtually entirely neutral or positive, to add some criticism of Murphy from J. Bradford DeLong and Paul Krugman based on Murphy's heterodox methodology and false public predictions. Let me know if you think that section looks good. (Also: There was a sentence saying that Murphy has been "a guest on The Political Cesspool radio show." I added some context indicating that the radio show is (according to its Wiki page and confirmed by a google search) syndicated by the neo-Nazi website Stormfront (I didn't call it neo-nazi, but just said "Stormfront syndicated and linked to the wiki page), describes itself as "pro-white", and has featured at least four other Mises Institute scholars as guests. Let me know if you think this edit is better! Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Helping hand

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For providing truly excellent guidance to our new Wikipedian, at the same time leading the way in improving "the article". Well done! – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Very nice of you - always good to welcome a new and enthusiastic editor. Stalwart111 11:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough

I saw your post - I'll back off. But you might want to have a word with the IP in question, too. He also dropped me a line or six. I guess he's not as blameless as he appears. Vilano XIV (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

C'mon guys, you're both clearly smarter than this. I've responded here. Stalwart111 12:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Holistic Management International

Hello! The article we were discussing got relisted. I am willing to take a stab at editing it. You want to help? I could use your guidance.Redddbaron (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Responded here. Stalwart111 12:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought we were basically done. and I do appreciate your help. For sure. But remember the source you took off PBS documentary line?? Leaving only a source showing the documentary aired on PBS? Now it is in a fight. LOLZ. Redddbaron (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem - have responded to your note here and the one on your talk page on the article talk page. Stalwart111 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA

"ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets" - I would say the addition has enough support and discussion relative to page traffic. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree and have responded here. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if Johnuniq responds further. The plural "or contributors" I already added as having support. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that - good work. Stalwart111 04:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done

You can now find it at Suzanne M. Olsson. Silverseren 18:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done! I'll keep working on it when I can. Stalwart111 23:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Front yard

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Great work in improving the Front yard article from a stub to its current state. Cheers, Northamerica1000 03:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wow, thanks! It has been fun rebuild. Stalwart111 05:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation to comment on the much improved article. I admit that I have been avoiding contributing directly because it seems to me such a large and difficult topic and properly referencing anything I might want to say is in itself going to be a difficult task. Please do not take anything I say as authoritative.

1. I am not sure it would be true to say that front gardens are typically used recreationally in the UK. That may be true in individual cases, especially where the plot layout dictates that there is no alternative, but I would argue that what tends to distinguish the front and rear is that the front is either ornamental or used for vehicles, it is the rear that usually incorporates the mix of recreational and utilitarian.

2. There is always a difficulty in distinguishing the UK from the rest of Europe - there has tended to be more cultural interchange than we often acknowledge, and Europe is a big place. The Dutch quote in relation to privacy is interesting because the reference to high boundaries in the UK would be more true of the back garden than the front. The two pictures used as illustrations, from Bornholm and Norfolk, are interesting for their similarity in concept (the absence of hedges in the Danish example may be mostly to do with climate). Where English people have high boundaries at the front I think that would be mostly to stop passers by from looking directly into the house or (especially today) to reduce traffic noise, rather than to prevent people from looking at the garden.

3. The historical development in Europe including the UK is going to be complex. The medieval archetype in England of a high status house set in its own grounds probably had the house in the centre of a three by three grid. It would I think be true that the main focus to the front was on arrival and access, with utilitarian activities and food growing to the sides and rear. As such, the ornamental impact of the front would dominate thinking, but to be sure I would want to see a mix of evidence on medieval to seventeenth century layouts to be confident about where ornamental gardens tended to be placed where there was choice in relation to the house front. As for lower status properties on smaller plots in rural areas, I am not sure whether it would be more typical for them to be set back from the road or not, and whether any available space was preferred to be at the front or back. What could probably be said with confidence is that by the 18th century in England in high status properties ornamental gardens were predominantly to the rear, to the extent that houses were oriented so that the front where people arrive faced north and was dominated by the carriage approach, whilst it is the opposite, garden, front that had the sun and an outlook over gardens and beyond. In towns only some of the grandest houses made room for even a courtyard on the street front, with others keeping only a narrow space protected by railings though they might have quite an extensive plot to the rear. By and large, that general idea of giving preference to that garden space at the back and only if space permitted a carriage approach at the front along a usually sweeping drive with a wall or plantings preventing direct view of the house from the street would have represented the ideal. But generalisations are dangerous - for example where I live in a street layout dating from the 1820s, the houses are set back from the street with more space to the front than the rear (none with vehicle access) and only a small yard or earth patch to the rear.

4. The 20th century pattern, the Garden City and other architectural movements notwithstanding, tended to favour retention of the front garden as a protected space. I do not accept, though, that the tendency to pave them over latterly has much to do with a decline in use of professional gardeners. These small domestic gardens were usually never intended to be professionally tended, and the use of them for car parking probably reflects increasing car ownership and the difficulty of street parking. As for the use of front gardens for food growing, I would argue that the encouragement to this had most to do with food shortages in the world wars. The fact that it mostly stopped fairly quickly thereafter is probably significant in itself. The cultural and practical incentives were to grow vegetables and fruit at the back. Most front gardens were not especially suitable, and home owners wanted an ornamental frontage. It is dangerous, by the way, to speak of the Great Depression in this context for complex reasons. It is a US expression and the pattern of the economic cycle in Europe was different, the inter-war years were a period of boom in private home ownership and this was when the ornamental front garden flourished, etc. That is not to deny that there were those encouraging the unemployed to grow vegetables in their gardens where they had them, but that was much less significant than the official wartime Dig for Victory campaigns (that is another article that needs a complete reworking, or split to remove a US bias that is wholly misleading as a redirect from Dig for Victory).

Sorry, I am feling guilty about not contributing directly, but I feel I know too much to decide where to begin and too little to identify the right sources. --AJHingston (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dean Aaron Roberts

Dear Stalwart111, thank you the message you sent to me:

Maybe I should have been clearer on the notes for the picture. I manage websites, design and create them, and deanroberts.net was one of my early commissions (his website is now managed by someone else). As I was new to that type of business I started locally and so I do have a connection to Dean Aaron Roberts, but he doesn't have any knowledge of this article and the connection is not a very strong one- I have only met him a few times and was aware of his work by a friend (I am interested in social media and Christianity so that's how the creation of the article was prompted). I honestly and sincerely do not know the other IP address. I am aware that IP addresses change very frequently in the UK and that may be a reason why there isn't much of a log for that IP on Misplaced Pages. Yes, rookie mistake maybe, but genuine.

How do you suggest that I continue? I am still keen to protect the article from deletion, but don't know how to proceed? Inthepubliceye (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you for your comprehensive explanation. I have responded further here. Stalwart111 10:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being kind and also for the explanation. I think your advice is good and will do what you've said. I desperately wanted to start contributing and I didn't know where I could start, but editing existing articles is a good idea. If the article is deleted, how then is it userfied?Inthepubliceye (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you could do it that would be great. I'm not really sure as to how to do that. I'm just scared that the work that I put into it will be lost. I know it's not much, but it took me ages to work out how to do stuff! Then I will let the debate run it's course and see what the closing admin says. Also, how is the article moved back in the future? Thanks for being a good guide. Inthepubliceye (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. :) Inthepubliceye (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine AfD

No, you are the one who deserves the thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, well I'm not sure about that, but a good result either way! Stalwart111 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

John Mackey (American football)

Hello Stalwart, thanks again for helping with the John Mackey (American football) section recently! In mid-April I suggested I would offer up a few more changes very soon, and then what happened is I decided the whole article really needed to be rewritten to bring it in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines and present a proper biography / career summary. Just as of a few minutes ago, I've posted a new proposed draft in my userspace (here) and an explanation of the changes on the article's Talk page (here). Would you be willing to review the draft, and perhaps consider taking it live? If you have any questions or concerns, I'll be happy to answer. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course - happy to have a look! Stalwart111 06:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry about the delay in replying, but I wanted to say here as well, thank you very much for reviewing + moving my draft. I also thought your changes were good. And your praise for my COI approach is especially welcome—I always intend that when I get involved on a subject where I have a financial COI that I really am making Misplaced Pages better for it, and I'm happy that you can see it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Help test new SuggestBot design

We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI Comment re SPECIFICO

Stalwart, would you be so kind as to move this comment: to the earlier SPECIFICO-related ANI notice on the page? As an "experienced, non-involved" editor (my first effort in this area), I had marked the section as resolved & NOTHERE. I think one ANI for SPECIFICO is enough. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your note - have moved my comment and non-admin closed the later thread. Stalwart111 06:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For collaboration on interesting and difficult articles. SPECIFICO talk 10:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)