User talk:Stonkaments

Nomination of Peanut (squirrel) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peanut (squirrel) 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/Peanut (squirrel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Departure– (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the work you do!

CornySerf (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Stonkaments reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: ). Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jonathan Keeperman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox

Do not accuse us of lying. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which police killings on that page were ruled murders? Stonkaments (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one the page is about. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that’s why I said *besides Floyd*. That poster is calling police officers from *other* cases, who were acquitted at trial, murderers. Stonkaments (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, I stand corrected. They were killed by police officers while unarmed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. Indeed, it’s surprising for many people to learn that strong men especially, even unarmed, can pose a very real threat to officers’ physical safety. Stonkaments (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf

Greetings! I undid an IP modification of your bolded !vote at this forum. I'm just following up with you to make sure that was not an intentional modification of your own !vote while inadvertently logged-out. If that's the case, please undo me and modify as you see fit. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nope that wasn’t me. Stonkaments (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks likewise! I did provide feedback at the AfC since you cleared that up for me. I did appreciate your comments, and wanted to reply in the best spot at the RfC. I appreciate you! JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Plant-based cat food

I'd like to ask you give your redirect recommendation of plant-based cat food another look.

In general, as to my comment on the discussion page:

• This topic deserves it's own page as an article spin-off WP:SPINOFF. Adding all the relevant information that is worthy of Wikipedia to the existing cat food page would make it too large and probably put WP:UNDUE weight on the cat food article.

This is a new page accepted only 2 months ago for which I have not yet gotten to the point of fully splitting the content out of the original cat food page. I request more time to complete this and to leave the page in place right now

Specifically on your comment: The previous recommendation you refer to was an inaccurate representation imho. E.g. The article start actually points out that plant-based cat food is characterized by the lack of animal products, and calls out synthetic and mineral sources as ingredients too.

Reliable sources have been used, and the tone reflects the research available on the topic, rather than the view of any ideology. At least that is what I aimed to do and fine tune with the help of the AfC process. I feel that the reporter's representation of the article is incorrect and very biased, all I ask is that you judge this young article on its merit Sklabb (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sklabb: Given it's a new article, I still think it makes more sense as a subsection of the cat food page. If it becomes too large or unwieldy, then it could make sense to seek consensus to spinoff to a separate article, as described in WP:SPINOFF and WP:SPLITTING. Also note WP:HASTE, which cautions not to split articles too soon. I appreciate the hard work you've done writing this article, and we really need to try to work it into Cat food first, rather than leaping to a standalone article right away. Stonkaments (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]