User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Stalwart111. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
DYK for Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book
 | On 30 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "the cake book with the train on the cover" (example pictured) has sold over a million copies in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Michael Potts (diplomat)
Hello! Your submission of Michael Potts (diplomat) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood
I see your point you made to the Duckbox issue, but my point was there is not even any circumstantial evidence against me. I read the sock puppet case it's referring to, and I'm more convinced this is a rampant witch hunt. The list can not say we have similar music interests as the puppet focused on rodeo, me garage rock and psychedelic rock. Age is not evidence it's a mere coincidence. Does this make my point more clear? TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
- TheGracefulSlick, I thought you point was clear already but in terms of evidence, "circumstantial" and "coincidental" are often synonymous. Not always, but often. If three people have the same characteristics, think the same way and approach things the same way, that can often be considered meat-puppetry anyway because the result is effectively the same. St★lwart111 10:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
CrazyAces489
You're right in saying that I overlooked the date stamps. Meanwhile, see WP:WIAPA — the policy covers accusations made without evidence, and accusations of sockpuppetry by non-new users demands significant evidence beyond what was given: definitely covered under the policy. But still, not helpful because of misunderstanding the dates. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note Nyttend. I appreciate that policy link but the basis of the SPI was clearly a genuine attempt to provide evidence of meat-puppetry, in line with admin comments from a previous (related) SPI and anecdotal evidence that others have subsequently accepted amounts to WP:BIAS but not bad-faith collusion. That the evidence was found to be insufficient is not the same as the evidence being non-existent. That said, I'm still not saying a block was inappropriate, just that a block at that stage wasn't all that helpful given the weeks of silence in between. The block has now been reduced to "time-served" and still, in a way, served the same function as a cool-down block would have a couple of weeks ago. Under the circumstances, the block served a preventative function (sort of) rather than a punitive function, and that was my major concern. You listened, Bish listened and the matter has (mostly) been resolved; a credit to you both. Keep up the good work. St★lwart111 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
About this edit, how would you call this particular stash? I considered adding it to hoard, but this was not a hoard, he specifically stated that he hid the money for the "rainy days" brought forth by the Spanish/American alliance to capture him. Prior to this, he was known to sell whatever he looted at Cabo Rojo and squander the gain, so its not like he was hoarding it for years (which may also explain why it was only 4k pieces of eight). We know that this case is rare and probably deserves mention somewhere, not only the book states so, but we know that pirates used their gains and to this day, only the Whydah Gally was full of treasure. The book also makes it clear that no other 19th century pirate was known to have hidden a portion of treasure and only gives Kidd as the other known example that was authenticated with era documents. He does mention Braziliano, but dismisses that account as a popular myth. 24.139.171.79 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is it's not a "hoard" or a "stash" or "buried treasure" - it was a claim by a guy desperate to get out of prison and the substantive part of a bribe offered to Francisco Brenes. Most accounts simply say it was "hidden" but that doesn't imply buried or kept in the form of a hoard. I could have just been hidden under a mattress somewhere or in any number of informal banks. And there isn't even proof it existed, only that it was offered. There isn't need to mention every prize every pirate ever claimed to have taken or held, certainly not those that cannot be verified. The only verifiable part is that a bribe was offered and rejected, and that isn't "rare". St★lwart111 01:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- The accuracy of the details in his testimony is verifiable, regardless if it's truth or not. What is rare is that we have an official document linking a pirate to "hidden" treasure (BTW, guess which article is referenced if you look up Hidden Treasure?).There is no such thing for some of the media darlings. And the problem with just limiting this article to "buried" treasure is that there is little historical material to create a decent section. Of course, I would accept that arbitrary limitation if the article did not randomly end on a section about the preservation of chests underwater, which seems way less relevant than non-buried hidden treasures. 172.56.4.205 (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's a problem dealt with by removing not-particularly-relevant content, not by adding more. I accept that the sources might be an accurate account of the attempted bribe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the funds for that bribe were "hidden" in a manner akin to "buried treasure". As above, "hidden" could mean a great many things in that context. Plenty of treasure was held in trust for pirates by land-owners and unofficial treasuries and banks. Arguably, those were "hidden" also. Whether the funds ever existed, the manner in which they were held (if they did) is unknown. There are lots of assumptions to be made for us to get from the primary-source testimony of a bribery target to the addition of such a claim in an article about buried treasure. St★lwart111 03:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the problem is that the article is self-limiting. This could be easily moved to "Pirate treasure", of which buried treasure would technically be a sub-category, and include stashes and even those funds. The only loss of content would be the part about Oak Island's pit. 208.54.44.163 (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't strongly object to that, but I'm still not sure Roberto Cofresí's funds would fit into that sort of article either. There is no "treasure", only alleged funds in the context of an attempted bribe. Not all funds owned by pirates was "treasure". The same problematic assumptions still apply. St★lwart111 04:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Recently in an AfD
someone was arguing with me in AfD that ambassadors are inherently notable. I said no they weren't as consensus has deleted many. their response: community consensus can be wrong !!! LibStar (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the last bastion of the knowingly wrong - "but they could be wrong". Yes, of course they could be and of course consensus could be wrong. But consensus isn't a matter of right or wrong, really. Consensus is simply the collective opinion of the majority of editors here so functionally speaking it can never be truly "wrong" as long as it reflects opinion. Policy says they aren't inherently notable and consensus has confirmed that policy. What those on the other side usually mean is "I think they should be inherently notable". And that's a fine opinion to have but it isn't consistent with the majority opinion. St★lwart111 02:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
This article has been re-created and is at AfD for the fourth time. Your comments will be welcome. I am notifying everyone who contributed to the previous AfDs. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)