User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Serial Number 54129. 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Hello Serial Number 54129, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| History |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Dude
Dude, if you want any additional rights, I can flick them on right under all their noses. Or if you have a beef with someone, I can block them all in one go and wheel-war away. Do tell whenever and whoever :D But seriously, hope you're doing well. Lourdes 08:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Let the advance commence! Page Moving Here I Come!"[FBDB] :) You're very kind Lourdes :D but I hope you are not finding your new duties particularly onerous! ——SerialNumber54129 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Love the puppy
I think the correct response to it is d’awwwww. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks ToBal, it's appreciated that he's appreciated :) not really a puppy though, he was thirteen—check out the ole grey chops! :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- All dogs are puppies regardless of the age :) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yaaaay!!!! :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's getting smaller and smaller, just like: her hat is getting larger and larger —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yaaaay!!!! :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- All dogs are puppies regardless of the age :) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Your GAN
Hello, it appears you have been inactive in your GAN on Talk:John Fresshe/GA1. It is holding up the backlog and should be addressed as it has been a month. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- @AmericanAir88: Yeas, it is somewhat of a slow boat to China, what? Better a Night Boat to Cairo, any day! And all the best to you, colleague. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is, in fact, still static, although I have addressed the reviewer's points, to a greater or lesser degree (indeed, there were not many of them). Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I will continue the review soon. You should not have to wait this long. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @AmericanAir88: Many thanks for involving yourself in this, it's very kind of you to take on others' work as well your own :) let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: No problem, Thank you! AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @AmericanAir88: Many thanks for involving yourself in this, it's very kind of you to take on others' work as well your own :) let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Assumed
that this was an error:-) ∯WBGconverse 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
your comment at ANi
removed others comment Please check. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Odd comments at AN
Hi Serial Number 54129, I did not see your final comment to me at AN before the thread was closed, but since it was one of a few odd edits by you in that general topic I wanted to bring those odd edits up to you. Namely, you twice made the troll thread by Peak Debt into a subthread of Fram's legitimate thread about Legacypac, which it clearly was not: [1], [2]; the second time you used the threatening edit summary of "@Softlavender. Do not do that again". When I reverted you again I also posted a polite request in the thread itself: "Serial Number 54129, this (Peak Debt's troll thread) was not and is not a subthread of Fram's thread; please do not make it one -- it makes Fram's thread all that much harder to participate in. Thank you." You replied: "Dear Softlavender. Have you sued your optician. Yours, etc.". I'm not sure where this is all coming from, but I would appreciate it if you would avoid that behavior in the future.
BTW, you had previously, in Fram's thread, made a very odd comment directed at the admin Fish and karate: "Fish and karate if you wish to change the sense of what you have written as you did here, please strike it out rather than delete it. Thank you." [3]. It's very clear to anyone looking at the diff you posted that he had only removed a duplicate of his own signature, as he explained in the edit summary. Fish+karate had the good grace to ignore your remark, however I'm mentioning here it because it became one of several odd edits and aspersions. All in all, please be more careful in the future to avoid these inaccurate aspersions and accusations. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Most Rational Person
You are right of course, that's me--though I had to doctor someone's quote for it. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:DTTR
I would normally WP:DTTR, but I'm reluctant to waste much time explaining to this particular regular why his behaviour is unacceptable. I am also puzzled why you're quick to point this out to me, and have nothing to say about his behaviour? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think, personally, that that justifies it at all. But, that's my personal opinion, and of course you're very much entitled to your own. I see there's a discussion on the talk page nw, so all's we that ends well. I understand your concerns. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sincere apologies
I'm so sorry, I'm an idiot valereee (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the detailed review and support of my FAC for Green Park tube station. It always helps to have comments from others and I'm sure it aided the article get promoted. That's my first new featured article since 2012, almost six years to the day, I now realise.--DavidCane (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Percy Glading
The article Percy Glading you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Percy Glading for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I found a definitive source for the name, unfortunately producing an image that also contains "This person is an absolute prick, learn 2 graf, u wanker!" would not have gone down well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- :D ...it would certainly give the Guardia Civility something to devote their paintboxes to! ——SerialNumber54129 18:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Some ads are worse than others
We are a renowned provider of IELTS certificate without exam! Bishonen | talk 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Brilliant :) I made sure I to take the addy down first! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Plus, you can buy it online! And we have professional hackers! Bishonen | talk 14:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC).
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Thank you for reaching out to me regarding the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article situation.
Under the "Political Positions" section, Ocasio was quoted as being furious about the Israeli military shooting 60 protesters during the 2018 Gaza border protests. Her quote makes abundantly clear that she believes that the protesters were a peaceful group voicing opinions, but that is the exact opposite of the truth. That part of the article cried out for balance, which I provided, using two sources, one of which was CNN (I forget the other, but it had verbatim quotes from Ocasio). I further note that the above-mentioned 2018 Gaza border protests article, which has been edit-protected for months, fully backs up what I wrote. It is therefore very frustrating for me to see that an editor named Tsumikiria not only reverted all my edits, he accused me of "severe BLP" violations, further accused me of "defamation" of the character of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and went on to open a Talk Page discussion in an attempt to revoke my edit credentials. I maintain that I absolutely stayed within WP:BLP guidelines, as shown by my sourcing, and as supported by the 2018 Gaza border protests article, which clearly shows the facts to be as I placed them into the article.
On the flip side, Tsumikiria has shown himself to have major WP:NPOV violations. Aside from removing all the appropriate balance I added (including, bizarrely, undoing the capitalization of "arab" into "Arab"), Tsumikiria went on to remove any content that showed Ocasio in a questionable light, as well as content (in addition to my edits) that falsely painted Israel as anything besides a wanton murderer of innocents. (Again, please read through the 2018 Gaza protest border article, which makes plainly clear that Israel was fending off armed Hamas members who were committing violent acts). My interest, as always, is in well-written, fair Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, my computer skills are severely lacking (at 47 years of age, I am hardly a digital native). When someone with major POV issues starts stepping all over my edits, it can be extremely frustrating, partially because my limited tech skills make it hard for me to know how to properly respond within WP guidelines. If you are able to step in and resolve ths issue in a fair way, I would be most grateful. Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
brain food?
|
54129, Crap? How so? It was very logical and is helpful to improving Wikipedia, that's what the whole message was about. You had no objection to anything i said, you simply called it crap. Spam, i sent it to 3 users, when did that become spamming?? So, what is your opinion, should Wikipedia be fact based material or a media outlet (crap)?
O3000, Im' autistic, sorry it took 2 days to figure the rules out. No need to make things up about me, you removed/redacted an objection i had for no reason other than it conflicting with your opinion which is the opinion of journalists, then restated the information as if you were teaching me something. Just to put it out there, The operation within the basement was disinformation, the "killroom" was discovered to be at a museum, that bit was never mentioned by media claiming to debunk the conspiracy. I thought the point of this is to help Wikipedia, sorry that users seem to think that fictional material can be used as factual material, maybe that is a reason Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information, as i have already stated. (Crimadella (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC))Crimadella (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC) I would suggest, as an aid for Wikipedia, such material should be removed altogether. It can neither be confirmed to be factual nor fictional, conspiracy & political agenda have no place in an encyclopedia, is this an encyclopedia?? Or a media outlet?? Crimadella (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
Some brain food for you!
|
|
The flaw, defined by Wikipedia it's self. Encyclopedia = fact based material about any given subject. Journalism may have approval of peers but is not a source of "fact" based material. Therefor deception is at hand, insuring readers that they are reading fact based material yet often cited by journalism, where bias opinions and flawed research are commonly expressed as fact based material. I would suggest that Wikipedia would gain more ground, acceptance, respect and funding if it stuck more to "fact based material" rather than citing journalism which is often flawed in fact based material. That would be the purpose that many specialists will not recommend Wikipedia as a source of reliable information.
Pizzagate, a conspiracy theory, and i'm sure many others, has been deemed by mass media and journalism to be made up then presented on Wikipedia as a "Debunked Conspiracy Theory" which is more opinion than fact based. Personal research i understand cannot be used as Verifiable but in the same light neither can journalism and media reports, the only thing you would be verifying is that a journalist wrote an article about any given subject, which actually doesn't have to be "fact based", as mistakes and bias opinions are very common within journalism. I would say that it is very wrong for a project which calls itself an encyclopedia with fact based material to cite journalists personal agendas and opinions as if it is fact, as even peer-reviewed journalism is full of disinformation and flaws. You can't present something as a fact then cite it with a source of non-factual information. I did my own research on pizzagate and the pedogate theory it morphed into, what i found flawed about the journalists debunking is they actually picked the things that could be debunked, false claims and made up material(disinformation), while failing to even mention the bits of information that was verifiable. With this particular strategy anything someone could suggest is a real conspiracy could be "debunked" even if the conspiracy was factual. All you need is a conspiracy, produce false information to add to it, then debunk the information you produced. A real "debunking" must debunk all claims, not hand picked claims which can be debunked. Concerning pizzagate & pedogate, this has never been achieved, yet deemed to be debunked even on something calling itself an encyclopedia, factual based material. If you dislike my research and opinions, that's fine, but this actually applies to anything, not just conspiracy theories and is my theory of why little respect is given to Wikipedia from professionals of nearly every field. Crimadella (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
- @Any watchers: if any of you happens to want an object lesson in WP:NOTHERE, I think the above suffices; less than a week's tenure, yet already banned from one user's talk page, and having a grand total of eight messages to user talkpages and two to article talk. Both of those were (correctly) removed per WP:NOTFORUM. The same crap is now being spammed over multiple talk pages. ——SerialNumber54129 17:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The editor suggested that I’m a pedophile because I said that Pizzagate was debunked. Now, I haven’t performed an exhaustive sociological study on consensus building – but I would guess that this is not an effective method of gaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wtf, O3000?! Then I suggest that it might possibly be a highly effective method of drawing attention to one's being absolutely elsewhere in regard to building the encyclopaedia...eh, Bishzilla? :D ——SerialNumber54129 18:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The editor suggested that I’m a pedophile because I said that Pizzagate was debunked. Now, I haven’t performed an exhaustive sociological study on consensus building – but I would guess that this is not an effective method of gaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Copper riveted
You said, "That material should go nowhere near this article (or any other) until it has copper fastened, fire-, water-, and bulletproof sourcing—descriptions which do not, in this context, apply to either Vanity Fair or the New York Daily News." I sure did just luv that post of yours! Anyway, thanks for your quick backup. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Alt-right page
Hi, I put in the quotation marks again as I explained in my original edit. Please understand the use of correct English in this instance. If a conservative uses "Alt-left" as a smear, they are not implying a false equivalence to the Alt-right. They are implying an ACTUAL equivalence. The implication of the equivalence is not "false" to the person making the implication. It is only "false" to the commentator on the implication, such as Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League (whom is obviously biased against the implication). He calls it a "false equivalence" in the linked source. It should therefore be in quotation marks only. If you remove these quotation marks, you are making this page non-neutral, and slanted towards his opinion, making it into a fact. It is not a fact that far left has no equivalence to the far right in terms of violence. It is an OPINION only. Many will disagree with this opinion. The Far left are well known to use violence and direct action as a tactic, as are the far right. Quotation marks must remain for quoted opinions. Thanks for your understanding. Transcendent28 (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- To save having the same conversation on four separate pages, I've replied on DW's talk. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Percy Glading
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Percy Glading you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: rememeber this? Funtimes, or what... ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed I do. I haven't got my reviewing boots in good order yet, but things are looking up and I'll try and contribute a little further down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: I'm going to be terribly forward here, but the only thing holding up my current candidate is the lack of a source review. Would you be able—? It's not a spot check, and if I say so myself, I think they're in pretty good order (no red or brown font with that script!). Apologies for putting you on the spot. No worries if you reviewing boots are still a little tight and ned to be walked in ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, Brian, I just read that you're unwell at the moment. Get well soon! I'll ask good ole User:KJP1 instead, it'll be a quick job :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed I do. I haven't got my reviewing boots in good order yet, but things are looking up and I'll try and contribute a little further down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello SN. Thanks for this I hadn't filed a report there for quite some time and was thrown by the "enter header here" box that is now part of the form to fill out. I appreciate your taking care of things. Cheers and have a spooktacular Halloween. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey MarnetteD no problem. Actually if I'd realised at the time that it was your report I probably would have assumed it to be part of some cunning strategy and left it alone! ;) Hope all's well? ——SerialNumber54129 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 October 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely
- News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks
- In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias
- Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform
- Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring
- Technology report: Bots galore!
- Special report: NPP needs you
- Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six
- In focus: Alexa
- Gallery: Out of this world!
- Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion
- Humour: Talk page humour
- Opinion: Strickland incident
- From the archives: The Gardner Interview
Your submission at Articles for creation: Hello Molly (October 19)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Hayaothman98/sandbox/Hello Molly and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Hayaothman98/sandbox/Hello Molly, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Serial Number 54129!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ——SerialNumber54129 09:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
|
- One of those days, huh? You have my sympathies! --Xover (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good to see you again Xover :) it's always one of those days here! ...Messaging myself—first sign of madness, but at least I'm guaranteed intelligent conversation :) Actually, of course, I must've missed the bit where it says "submit as someone else". So I didn't. Talk about School for the gifted, eh? How's tricks? ——SerialNumber54129 11:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Tricky. Very very tricky. (PS. the guarantee isn't intelligent conversation; it's conversation on your intellectual level. There's a subtle difference.) --Xover (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good to see you again Xover :) it's always one of those days here! ...Messaging myself—first sign of madness, but at least I'm guaranteed intelligent conversation :) Actually, of course, I must've missed the bit where it says "submit as someone else". So I didn't. Talk about School for the gifted, eh? How's tricks? ——SerialNumber54129 11:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
ScienceApe
[4] — I know, I was thinking the same thing, but it doesn't really make any difference. If the account has been compromised, the remedy is the same: indef. Also, it hasn't necessarily been, because the user has only very recently involved himself with American politics at all — a few days ago — it's not so unusual that that subject sends previously mild-mannered people berserk. Or in this case, makes them go Ape. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: I'm sorry: I didn't mean to imply that you were wrong or heavy-handed, or anything like that. I was just musing, and as Galobtter points out, I was probably wrong anyway. On a lighter note: "go Ape" :D ha! ——SerialNumber54129 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry: I didn't mean to imply that you meant to imply that I was wrong or heavy-handed, not at all. I was just chatting. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: :) ——SerialNumber54129 -------------------->
- I'm sorry: I didn't mean to imply that you meant to imply that I was wrong or heavy-handed, not at all. I was just chatting. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC).
- Yeah, I was wondering about that too, but either way Bish is right. Well, she's always right. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- And I just want to say I don't agree with those who say she's a Bish. EEng 21:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bishonen, I was looking through their edit history and it is pretty clear they've made similar personal attacks before and it is only luck that they escaped warnings/sanctions for them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
DYK
I was trying my hands as to reviewing a DYK over here and here.Any comments/advices? :-)∯WBGconverse 07:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, fancy a bit of gardening eh! But no mate, I don't think I can teach you anything. You got stuck into both of them alright, I haven't laughed so much on wiki for ages 😁 it's brilliant. That Temple one, fantastic. Why do I never get ones like that! Man it makes life worth living :)On a more serious note, obviously if I can advise on anything dyk-related, I will, but tbh the criteria are pretty simple, lots of tools and automatons to help, and for what its worth, I couldn't have advised you on those two —as I've never rejected a hook before! Carry on, sergeant! 🍻 ——SerialNumber54129 07:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm hurt that you didn't point out to our fledgling reviewer that I am Wikipedia's most famous hooker. EEng 19:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
??
Re your edits to my talk page... Can I help you with anything? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: Apologies: No, I blame it on the fingerless gloves! Sorry about that, though. ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh sure... blame the gloves... :-p
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
- Have a great day! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, it'll get better after they finish taking the striking power workers to be shot :) Caio! ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
First time I saw the creator's "keep" rationale hijacked as a "delete" rationale.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: A a good keep rationale can keep an article, can't it—so I suppose there's no reason that a poor rationale can't sink one. Anyway, it waz Duffbeerforme wot started it :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I use that reasoning all the time: "If that's the best that you, who have eagerly beaten the bushes for sources, can come up with, then this is a delete." EEng 17:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good to know my strategy has a sound provenance :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I use that reasoning all the time: "If that's the best that you, who have eagerly beaten the bushes for sources, can come up with, then this is a delete." EEng 17:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Heh
See here. It's no wonder the rest of the internet keeps making fun of us. We keep giving them such cringeworthy material to work with. Well, some of us, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. I suppose crapping over WP:BURO and feeding the gallery is squaring the circle in some lines of work. Well, as you say, for some of us. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- The same person just templated me for disruptive editing me after reverting an unrelated joke I posted at ANI. Of course, when I (naturally) re-reverted, an admin came along and added to the joke, which must have stung something fierce. It boggles the mind that there are people out there who take themselves and what we do here that seriously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- (tps) Oh you have no idea MPants at work, I have seen worse. Is it high time for SN54129 to wear the badge? Although the same folks are going to talk about temperaments again. What does one do in a lose-lose situation? Alex Shih (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Shih: Ten days ago I emailed l-arbcom, and receievd the automated rely, "awaitng moderator approval". Since then I have received neither a reply nor a disapproval. What gives. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Was going to make a joke about l-arbcom (since it's arbcom-l) but cannot think of a punchline. Your e-mail must have been some uninteresting stuff. Add some shining names and hyperbole to your e-mail, and it might receive attention. People are not that busy usually. Alex Shih (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Shih: Well, it was only user names like "Admins get killed" and the like :P ...but yes, this is defintely the place for arbcom jokes, punchline or no. Meh, you were one of if not the most nuanced of this tranche's arbs, which is a quality sadly lacked in those with great responsibilities. I think, anyway. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Was going to make a joke about l-arbcom (since it's arbcom-l) but cannot think of a punchline. Your e-mail must have been some uninteresting stuff. Add some shining names and hyperbole to your e-mail, and it might receive attention. People are not that busy usually. Alex Shih (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Alex Shih:Well, I'm me and Serial Number got into a row once a year or two ago over something that I probably couldn't be bothered to work up a "meh" over, now. Normally, that wouldn't be an issue, but this is Wikipedia, and grudges must be held. Plus I once agreed with someone who reverted Serial Number, which we all know is a deal breaker.
- Serial Number, in case it's not obvious, that preceding paragraph is pure humor and I'd be one of the first to !vote Support. To be honest, content creation is not what I look for in an admin, even though you've got the chops there for sure; even-handedness and a willingness to smack drama over the head with a clue-by-four at the drop of a hat are. And I think you've got those qualities, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: Did we really have a row a year or two back? If so, that's a shame and no mistake. There's a chap below also mentioning a poor interaction with me that I also can't for the life of me remember...temperment and memory loss, eh, perfect. I don't know why the bloody thing keeps getting mentioned really! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think we did. I'm not 100%. But I've argued with a lot of editors, so it's likely, lol. The only disagreements on here that stick in my mind are the ones where someone says something really stupid, and that's actually quite rare. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: Did we really have a row a year or two back? If so, that's a shame and no mistake. There's a chap below also mentioning a poor interaction with me that I also can't for the life of me remember...temperment and memory loss, eh, perfect. I don't know why the bloody thing keeps getting mentioned really! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Shih: Ten days ago I emailed l-arbcom, and receievd the automated rely, "awaitng moderator approval". Since then I have received neither a reply nor a disapproval. What gives. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- (tps) Oh you have no idea MPants at work, I have seen worse. Is it high time for SN54129 to wear the badge? Although the same folks are going to talk about temperaments again. What does one do in a lose-lose situation? Alex Shih (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- The same person just templated me for disruptive editing me after reverting an unrelated joke I posted at ANI. Of course, when I (naturally) re-reverted, an admin came along and added to the joke, which must have stung something fierce. It boggles the mind that there are people out there who take themselves and what we do here that seriously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Given my recent history, I've gone ahead and watchlisted this to be sure I don't miss trolling your RfA too... :D Lourdes 10:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Lourdes: heh :) and remember the mandatory Wikipediocracy thread too! :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I've watchlisted it too ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
wot
Regarding this, I just want to say that I was just teasing you in the edit you replied to. I suspect you were aware of that, given your response, but I want to be clear. No hard feelings, nor criticism was intended, just humor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- None taken whatsoever, MjolnirPants, and you will be doubtless glad to hear that my date rapey days are far behind me ;) If you're in London any time, I'm sure I could see my way to providing a beverage of the rohipless kind! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- One of these days, I'm actually going to take a trip to London. Something like half of my favorite editors live there. With all the pints we keep offering to buy each other, it's gonna be an epic pub crawl. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Opinion
Your comments as to the prospects of a nominated GA would be immensely welcome....:-)∯WBGconverse 09:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also, how will Godfrey's Cordial fare at one? ∯WBGconverse 09:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @The Blades, well: The sting operation, with a little (i.e: not much) work is proabbly definite. The cordial...yes, I guess. Might take slightly more work: it's very slender, and, although (just) over the (very-unofficial) lower limit of 500 words, could probably have some more context and background added to it, without sending it wildly of couse (see criterion 3). But yeah, I'd go for it/them. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Although, I seem to remember that last time I lokoked at a GA, it was chock-full of subst:this and subst:'that: and I don't really nkow what that means :) so a reviewer who can't even fill out the first line may not be the droid you're looking for! @Ritchie333: the go-to guy for explaining me that kind of thing... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- You really want a Bengali speaker who can spot check the sources, can Vanamonde93 handle it? More importantly, are you up for a pint at Pendrels on Sunday? I may see if I can sneak in a conference call with Lady Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't guess V93 is proficient in Bengali.@Dwaipayanc:, @QEDK: and @Titodutta: are the names that I can recall, who are proficient in the language and longstanding enough.....∯WBGconverse 10:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Is there such a thing as a joint-review at GA, know ye? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- The rules say that one person nominates and one person "chairs" the review, but anyone else can chip in and add comments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Damn, GA review over a pint? I really need to look for work in London. Alex Shih (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, no Bengali, sorry....and to be honest, I would avoid Bengali sources unless they were specifically providing information not available in English. The Indian news media has a tendency towards hyperbolae and sensationalism, which gets stronger the further you get from the most staid English-language publications. If you have scholarly sources available, use those for what you can first, and only use news sources to fill in the gaps. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can chip in sure, but that's a bit difficult way to have a GA review, with me having to corroborate every fact and the fact that the primary reviewer has no way to check personally about the veracity. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 03:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- @QEDK: would you be willing to take it on as reviewer, while having me nibble away at the sides, commenting on prose etc? I only suggest a dual review because I was asked, and while I don't want to refuse, I'm ualso aware of the language barrier to much of the sourcing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't been on a GAR for a long time and I don't want to say I'll be able to devote the required time, as I'm currently pressed for time. My apologies for not being able to help. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @QEDK: would you be willing to take it on as reviewer, while having me nibble away at the sides, commenting on prose etc? I only suggest a dual review because I was asked, and while I don't want to refuse, I'm ualso aware of the language barrier to much of the sourcing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can chip in sure, but that's a bit difficult way to have a GA review, with me having to corroborate every fact and the fact that the primary reviewer has no way to check personally about the veracity. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 03:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, no Bengali, sorry....and to be honest, I would avoid Bengali sources unless they were specifically providing information not available in English. The Indian news media has a tendency towards hyperbolae and sensationalism, which gets stronger the further you get from the most staid English-language publications. If you have scholarly sources available, use those for what you can first, and only use news sources to fill in the gaps. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Damn, GA review over a pint? I really need to look for work in London. Alex Shih (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- The rules say that one person nominates and one person "chairs" the review, but anyone else can chip in and add comments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Is there such a thing as a joint-review at GA, know ye? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't guess V93 is proficient in Bengali.@Dwaipayanc:, @QEDK: and @Titodutta: are the names that I can recall, who are proficient in the language and longstanding enough.....∯WBGconverse 10:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- You really want a Bengali speaker who can spot check the sources, can Vanamonde93 handle it? More importantly, are you up for a pint at Pendrels on Sunday? I may see if I can sneak in a conference call with Lady Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
C'mon
You know fresh eyes are good. EEng 19:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well of course, and I'm absolutely (in)famous for my inability to be able to take a step back or see through my own blind spots. Feel free to revert; I just thought you cut out all the interesting context. And, really, it's not as if it's ever going to be an FA is it. To which I would point you, for example, in this general direction. Hope you're well EEng! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I stay away from FA because my observation is that there are too many unwritten arbitrary rules there. Nonetheless, in most cases if you personally were to ask me to make a pass (with a lighter touch than applied to poor Miss Linsley) I'd be happy to do that, but this particular article is far too specialized for me to pretend to be able to add anything. I did adapt one of the footnotes to good purpose, though [5].
- BTW Google translates Comme un Indien dans son igloo as Come do Indian dance you son of igloo but I fail to grasp the significance.
- EEng 19:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- "I just thought you cut out all the interesting context". I concur - I'm not particularly "up" on train geekery but even I know what rolling stock is. Just randomly putting the phrase through standard news sources suggests it's a perfectly recognisable layman term. I see your point about the specifics of Class 415s getting into extreme nerdery, but in that case I think the link gives you the full share of train porn if you're into that sort of thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Serial, I wrote this just in humour. Apologies if it came out wrong. Wishes as always, Lourdes 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Last time I got drunk and edited, my bocklog doubled in length :) "'Never More', Quoth the Hydration". —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Bocklog!" Awesome pun... Carrite (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Tsmamerica
this version caused me to nominate. The version you contested is ok. See TP. Kleuske (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Specifically the "TSCM America® is a Certified Veteran Owned Small Business"-bit. Kleuske (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, Kleuske, it's been a long day. That was a definite call, I agree, and even now prob worth a revdel. Can you get RHaworth to delete the page and then recreate it without the spam revisions. Thanks for letting us know. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, mate. Kleuske (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, Kleuske, it's been a long day. That was a definite call, I agree, and even now prob worth a revdel. Can you get RHaworth to delete the page and then recreate it without the spam revisions. Thanks for letting us know. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Your tagged articles
Your just tagged Draft:Joseph Kalimbwe for quite deletion "created by a banned user. Please revisit your tag and see that it was never created by that user. Kind regards SouthAfrica1994 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Its on my list. Hold though! Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Holding tight! :) cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry about changing your user page. Thought that spam was just ignored for months but funny enough after I published changes, I decided to double check the history and saw that someone else tried to do the same thing ;D. So I reverted my own edit and wrote the apology in the edit details but when I saved it someone else had beaten me to it. So I decided might as well write it here. So that's basically a long way of saying sorry. BOOMERANG. Thanks User:Galobtter and User:Serial Number 54129. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @DJ-Joker16: No problem at all, that has happened before as you say. If it keeps happening, well :) and thanks again for Galobtter's UP stalking (funny enough, I didn't even get a notification of either of your edits there). Take care all! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Bonville
Great work on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, that really puts Lionheart0317 and my petty squabble into perspective. You should be cloned a few thousand times and set to work on rewriting the whole of Wikipedia :) You must expect me to ask, though, why you've not mentioned the disputed parentage of Philippa Bonville, as you agreed was appropriate when you gave us your third opinion here. —SMALLJIM 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Smalljim: Many thanks for the kind message. I'll day here that I'm not particularly wedded to either perspective, but, yes, my position has shifted slightly, to reflect what i discovered in the sources. Perhaps I should post on the article talk page? Having said that, and whatever gets said elsewher, I have to say I'm not a fan of Lionheart's approach to collaboration. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's such a tiny point that the pages of argument must be in line for lamest edit war of 2018. But it does have some significance because of a Royal descent for living people if Philippa (P) was Bonville's (B) daughter.
- A quick summary... Before Lionheart started on the article it excluded P from B's children; in this version solely citing Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) - extracts are readable via Google Books (pp. 256-7). Lionheart was right to amend this, but he went too far, leaving P as B's daughter, citing J. S. Roskell and History of Parliament (1993). He has vigorously defended this position.
- My position, after some research, is that P's parentage still isn't known for certain despite years of genealogical research that have attacked the problem from many different angles. In 2017, Richardson set out the reasons for his decision on soc.genealogy.medieval here. We don't know why the editors of History of Parliament made their decision. Lionheart goes on about new research of 2018, but this hasn't been published.
- So in order to not mislead our readers, I think we should include a (very!) brief note of the uncertainty. —SMALLJIM 15:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm intrigued by this edit and its immediate revert. What does it indicate? —SMALLJIM 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Smalljim: It indicates I then forgot to post on the talk :) Anyway, that's what the original footnote said in the previous version, so it's up to you and Lionheart to chew the cud and decide how you want to proceed. My original "willingness" to compromise with the footnote in the original version was because, with the paucity of sources available in it, it seemed as if there was indeed a divided body of opinion. But the re-writing of it has—for me—cast new light. Personally, I now lean towards the view that it's stretching credibility slightly to say that there is any kind of debate among historians when I have provided ~70 sources (and remember they are only a (large) percentage of the sources I actually examined), all of which represent a substantial cross-section of late-20C. scholarship and all of whom say only that she was his daughter. And, indeed, the only character cited as saying otherwise seems neither a specialist of the period or, arguably, a historian at all (a genealogist?)—to the extent that they are cited no-where else in the article. Personally, I suspect that it's verging on the WP:FRINGE, probably originating with a 17C. palaeographical error, although that's my personal OR of course. Thanks for the update, and let's hope this is resolved soon! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that reasoned reply – it's a pleasant change from what I've been dealing with recently! There would be no point in attempting to discuss further with Lionheart (he's already gleefully restored his full-fat footnote and refs to one of the other relevant articles – note the edit summary). I do think you're underestimating the important part that RS genealogical researchers (in this case Fitch-Northen (1979) and Richardson, thrice) play in examining the facts that historians who, while writing about something more interesting, will just mention in passing and will copy sans check from their sources. And surely you're over-egging somewhat the number of sources that even mention Philippa – certainly not all 70 of yours do! But I think on balance that I won't pursue this further. I don't want your GAN to go down through the possibility of continued edit warring, and not mentioning the issue at all is closer to what it should be, compared to taking up half of the entire article as it did in Lionheart's preferred version. Thanks again. —SMALLJIM 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Smalljim: Not at all, I think if you think it's significant enough to mention, then so it should be. Indeed, a) I didn't know about Norton-Fitch, so there's another, and b) true about the number of sources which mention her at all = very few, which is really why I just can't get excited about the significance. Some of that attitude is really unsavoury, and I certainly don't like being namechecked like that. Perhaps change the footnote I added to what you think it would say? Never mind the GA, green blobs are irrelevant to most :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's very decent of you. I'll give it further thought. —SMALLJIM 10:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Smalljim: Not at all, I think if you think it's significant enough to mention, then so it should be. Indeed, a) I didn't know about Norton-Fitch, so there's another, and b) true about the number of sources which mention her at all = very few, which is really why I just can't get excited about the significance. Some of that attitude is really unsavoury, and I certainly don't like being namechecked like that. Perhaps change the footnote I added to what you think it would say? Never mind the GA, green blobs are irrelevant to most :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that reasoned reply – it's a pleasant change from what I've been dealing with recently! There would be no point in attempting to discuss further with Lionheart (he's already gleefully restored his full-fat footnote and refs to one of the other relevant articles – note the edit summary). I do think you're underestimating the important part that RS genealogical researchers (in this case Fitch-Northen (1979) and Richardson, thrice) play in examining the facts that historians who, while writing about something more interesting, will just mention in passing and will copy sans check from their sources. And surely you're over-egging somewhat the number of sources that even mention Philippa – certainly not all 70 of yours do! But I think on balance that I won't pursue this further. I don't want your GAN to go down through the possibility of continued edit warring, and not mentioning the issue at all is closer to what it should be, compared to taking up half of the entire article as it did in Lionheart's preferred version. Thanks again. —SMALLJIM 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Smalljim: It indicates I then forgot to post on the talk :) Anyway, that's what the original footnote said in the previous version, so it's up to you and Lionheart to chew the cud and decide how you want to proceed. My original "willingness" to compromise with the footnote in the original version was because, with the paucity of sources available in it, it seemed as if there was indeed a divided body of opinion. But the re-writing of it has—for me—cast new light. Personally, I now lean towards the view that it's stretching credibility slightly to say that there is any kind of debate among historians when I have provided ~70 sources (and remember they are only a (large) percentage of the sources I actually examined), all of which represent a substantial cross-section of late-20C. scholarship and all of whom say only that she was his daughter. And, indeed, the only character cited as saying otherwise seems neither a specialist of the period or, arguably, a historian at all (a genealogist?)—to the extent that they are cited no-where else in the article. Personally, I suspect that it's verging on the WP:FRINGE, probably originating with a 17C. palaeographical error, although that's my personal OR of course. Thanks for the update, and let's hope this is resolved soon! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm intrigued by this edit and its immediate revert. What does it indicate? —SMALLJIM 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
And the further thought is that yes, I will add a brief footnote as you suggest. I'll explain on Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. Tomorrow... —SMALLJIM 23:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ricky Megee
The article Ricky Megee you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ricky Megee for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Grennock Stowaways article
If you nominate it again, I'd be happy to review it--please ping me. There's nothing there that's not fixable. Catrìona (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Catrìona: You are very, very generous, and after all my raging there, you make me humble. You are very kind. I will be the first to admit that articles I nominate are unlikely to be perfect—I write them and nominate them, often in the same stroke, otherwise, I totally forget. And there's usually such a massive wait between nominating and reviewing that there's plenty of time to fiddle and tweak. Clearly not so this time! I'll be the first to admit I forgot about the lead (d'oh!), and would have given the prose a copyedit too, but if the rest of the review hadn't been so passive-aggressive WP:IDLI, we might have actually got somewhere. One lives and learns. Thank you again for your offer (and, btw, for your DYK review the other day, I forgot to thank you). I hope you have a good weekend! (One that isn't centred on reviewing my turgid text, of course!!!)—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of John Fresshe
The article John Fresshe you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:John Fresshe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Shall
you choose to chime in at Template:Did you know nominations/Godfrey's Cordial, it'll be a pleasure, as to my first DYK run:-)∯WBGconverse 14:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: Many thanks, great stuff, i've done so. I've made a couple of tweaks , a suggestion or two, but nothing particularly radical, feel free to revert or contest if you wish :) everything I do is contestable. Well, with the exception of wot that character above is moaning about. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Belated thanks, for your review and copy-edit(s) :-) As to the above thread, welcome to ARBIPA where the law of the land is to assume bad-faith. ∯WBGconverse 14:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I get dat :) reviewed, and re-reviewed. Prepare for ...ALT3 :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Belated thanks, for your review and copy-edit(s) :-) As to the above thread, welcome to ARBIPA where the law of the land is to assume bad-faith. ∯WBGconverse 14:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Serial Number 54129. Firstly many thanks for the additions to Siege of Berwick (1333). Useful stuff there, you clearly have access to some handy sources. Secondly, as you are no doubt aware, the article picked up an assessor for its GAN, Zawed, on 29 July, who gave his initial thoughts on 5 August. Obviously the assessment has been put on hold while you are adding significant material to the article. I was wondering if you know when you are likely to have finished adding to the article. I am not trying to hurry you - this is Wikipedia, you can edit what you want, when you want - but, again obviously, Zawed doesn't want to waste his time commenting on an article which is in flux, nor I mine on addressing them when it may be pointless. As the creator and nominator of the article you will understand my interest. Thanks again for the input. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- <Holding place until tomorrow morning UTC> —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Serial Number 54129. I am assuming that your lack of reply and lack of editing for the past week implies that you are not currently planning on adding new material, so I shall get on with addressing the GA assessor's comments. Let me know if my assumption is incorrect. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Who can put it better than yourself? "I think it best if I avoid interactions with this editor, at least for a while or I may be a little too "free and frank". And there you have it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I find that enigmatic. I hope that I have not been too free and frank. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Who can put it better than yourself? "I think it best if I avoid interactions with this editor, at least for a while or I may be a little too "free and frank". And there you have it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Serial Number 54129. I am assuming that your lack of reply and lack of editing for the past week implies that you are not currently planning on adding new material, so I shall get on with addressing the GA assessor's comments. Let me know if my assumption is incorrect. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Refs
References
Source
- Blud, V. (2017). The Unspeakable, Gender and Sexuality in Medieval Literature, 1000-1400. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-84384-468-6.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
HIV and ZFN
Hi Serial Number. Liked the personalised talk page message. It is a nice touch. However, I can't claim credit for the article as I split it out from Zinc finger nuclease where I decided it was too WP:Undue. I am not sure who created most of that, a lot appears to be merged previously from Zinc in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, although there already was a section pre-merge. Looking through the history most was added here. Thanks for your new page work. AIRcorn (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just noticed the nomination for autopatroled. Thanks for that too. AIRcorn (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hope you're OK with that Aircorn; I imagine you can always give it back like the other permissions if you don't want it...I see what you mean about the article. It's good work though, because, in a way, you've started a new article and at the same time improved the other. So, no images then! Unless one has access to a Cambridge laboratory I guess ;) (although it's no joking matter really, apologies). Hope all's well! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 07:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I applied years ago, but hadn't created enough articles. I wasn't sure what to do about the HIV article, but felt this was the best option. All good here, although getting busy in real life. AIRcorn (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment on ANI
Can you elaborate how I am "NOTHERE"? I just reported one who is not understanding simple guidelines and claiming that I made 3 or 4 reverts (when I made none). Please describe. Qualitist (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- This discussion belongs at ANI, where it started. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Serial Number 54129. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter
Hello! Your submission of John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter 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! Flibirigit (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter
Thanks for writing John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter. I can see you have put a lot of work into it. I am in the process of review the DYK at nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter. Hopefully we can work together to pass this soon. I have a couple questions I noted on the nomination page. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
wt:milhist
I take it you meant "ax"? - wolf 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: please to explain? ——SerialNumber54129 23:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Interested parties may wish to take a butcher's at this
. It's missing the word. --Izno (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)- @Thewolfchild and Izno: Ah! Apologies, I see it was as if I was talking in tongues :) I've linked for clarity. Thanks for the pointer though, and apologies for any confusion—I don't really want anyone to take an ax to an innocent draft! ——SerialNumber54129 10:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Freehold and Fine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please return to the nomination as the nominator has suggested new hooks. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please return to this nomination within three days; otherwise the nomination will be marked for closure as stale. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Inspire Brands
Perhaps you are unaware, there is a concept called consensus through editing. Myself SportsFan007 (talk · contribs) and Mifter (talk · contribs) have perticipated in the discussion. Myself, sportsfan and Spshu (talk · contribs) have reverted therefore you would need to warn all of us. Any reason why you singled me out? That can be seen as personal attack. Now left a message on Lourdes (talk · contribs) for an override. Also there is a discussion on Cunard (talk · contribs)'s page where this was mentioned
Inspire Brands has new information since the 29 July 2018 AfD closure:
On August 16, 2018, The Wendy's Company announced that it sold its 12.3% stake in Inspire Brands back to Inspire Brands for $450 million, which includes a 38% premium over its stake most recent valuation.
On September 25, 2018, Inspire Brands announced that it was buying Oklahoma City-based Sonic Drive-In for $2.3 billion. The firm expects that the acquisition should be completed by the end of the year.
There may be enough new information that {{db-repost}} does not apply.
Please be more careful before you warn an editor of an edit war when no such thing is going on. Valoem talk contrib 16:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Valoem: If you do not edit war, you will recive no notice as such (and, incidentally, leaving such a notice is not vandalism, as such, describing it as vandalism is actually an aspersion). Many thanks, ——SerialNumber54129 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- There are multiple editors involved with a major agreeing with me there was ongoing discussion as well and no revert had taken place for many hours. Warning one editor is improper not an aspersion. You need to be more careful. Thank you Valoem talk contrib 16:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well,
you may not know what you're talking about, butyou're certainly persistent. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well,
- There are multiple editors involved with a major agreeing with me there was ongoing discussion as well and no revert had taken place for many hours. Warning one editor is improper not an aspersion. You need to be more careful. Thank you Valoem talk contrib 16:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 December 2018
- From the editor: Time for a truce
- Special report: The Christmas wishlist
- Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee
- Arbitration report: A long break ends
- Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight
- Gallery: Intersections
- From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis
DYK nomination of John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter
Hello! Your submission of John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: All the issues raised were dealt with on the day; I merely chose not to engage with a rather patronising review. Many thanks for your note, though. Hope all is well! ——SerialNumber54129 15:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. You have new messages at your DYK nomination of Slovak Three. If you are unable to respond soon, the nomination may be marked for closure as stale. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Image source problem with File:Example of how Amazon restricts page views for online books.png
Thank you for uploading File:Example of how Amazon restricts page views for online books.png.
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:39, 3 December 2018 (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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. As you have been unable to propose a new hook for this nomination, it has now been marked for closure. If you still wish to pursue this, please respond and suggest a new hook at the nomination page. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Please tell me you did that on purpose!
of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests
is just majestic! Please tell me you did that on purpose just to make people's head explode? I haven't laughed so hard on here in ages! :) --Xover (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Xover; clearly I poured mock turtle soup into my brains before typing. ——SerialNumber54129 12:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey do you have a URL for the website for the TEAMS edition of those eleven Gawain romances and tales? 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's at Rochester, isn't it? 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wot, in Kent? Seems very specific! ——SerialNumber54129 15:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dude. Thomas Hahn, U of Rochester. It's all free, online. Never mind--the student left. He'll find it by Googling. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wot's the URL? I made some edits to do with Robn Hood recently; can't remember quite where though. I think to do with later outlaws being seen in his image etc. Interesting stuff. ——SerialNumber54129 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dude. Thomas Hahn, U of Rochester. It's all free, online. Never mind--the student left. He'll find it by Googling. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Can
you please email me a screenshot of this page, if you can access it in entirety? Thanks! ∯WBGconverse 11:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My understanding is you closed this early in good faith without leaving the 168 hours for the discussion to run per WP:NotEarly. Especially as a non-admin closure this seems controversial... The interim relist has been removed from the closed discussion by the re-lister. While the no-consensus result was probably inevitable in this case I am concerned about lack of following of procedure. I am actually totally neutral about the article or its subject but the handling of AfD discussions are of concern to me and I'm not not happy about this one. I know RoySmith was involved in this one. I am tempted to request an discussion re-open on principle because people are not following procedure ... though I have nothing to contribute otherwise to the discussion. Do you have any comments. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I reverted the removal of the relist. See my edit comment there for why. We're at the point where a sequence of minor procedural errors have occurred. It should not have been relisted a third time. It should not have non-admin speedy closed. The relist should not have been reverted. None of these things are big deals in isolation, but we've gotten to the point where things have become chaotic. My (strong) recommendation is that everybody step back and leave this to some uninvolved admin to sort out. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- @RoySmith and Djm-leighpark: There's been a sight misunderstanding (although not by me); the AfD was filed a month ago, @14:05 on the 22 October 2018—or nearly 700 hours. I don't think "Speedy close" is the phrase I'd use. ——SerialNumber54129 18:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I get that. But, I don't know that we've got a more concise term of art for, closed less than seven days after the last time it was relisted, so speedy close will have to do :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's no requirement to wait 168 hours every time something gets relisted: the blooming thing would last forever. Per WP:RELIST,
A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days
. Anyway, that's my WP:NONADMINACCT done :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's no requirement to wait 168 hours every time something gets relisted: the blooming thing would last forever. Per WP:RELIST,
- Well, yes, I get that. But, I don't know that we've got a more concise term of art for, closed less than seven days after the last time it was relisted, so speedy close will have to do :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- @RoySmith and Djm-leighpark: There's been a sight misunderstanding (although not by me); the AfD was filed a month ago, @14:05 on the 22 October 2018—or nearly 700 hours. I don't think "Speedy close" is the phrase I'd use. ——SerialNumber54129 18:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I just wanted to thank everyone including Serial for closing things up (and Roy for reverting the revert in the whole chained mess). Since it was proved a closure can happen before 7 day relist happens, then I have no complaints at all. Again sorry for relisting the 3rd time on my error. It will not happen again. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frame -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Yes, I was wondering when you'd notice the When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page thing. Well, if you need an ANI to explain WP:RELIST to you, go ahead. ——SerialNumber54129 19:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frame -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thankyou for everyone's comments. I think I've now satisified myself with Serial Number 54129's explanation and the timeline and indeed it likely seems an excellent close. .... (I'll also admit I'd missed the WP:RELIST less than 168 hour point). I'd also note that as an admin RoySmith is probably referring the discussion for an uninvolved admin to check it (as he was involved in that discussion) and check handling was OK rather than anything personal. Anyway thats my thoughts and I do not wish to cause anyone trouble. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- The issue looks more about removing a relist from a closed thread (not done by yourself). Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
My wifi's IP has been blocked
Thanks for pointing out what that discussion on Drmies' talk was actually about. I'd never have cottoned on if you hadn't. Did you know that 90% of Black Friday "bargains" are actually cheaper at other times of the year? 92.8.221.206 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, quite. Always a pleasure, Vote (X) for Change. Make sure you check your train times, there's a signal failure at the Bow Junction neutral section. ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Where is Bow Junction? If you're interested, Wikipedia is trending on Twitter [6]. 92.8.221.206 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is a link that could get you into Fenchurch Street. On the subject of railway stations, how did Turkey Street get its name? 92.8.221.206 (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- From a nearby pub called The Turkey (it only closed a couple of years ago). English place names are rarely as interesting as one expects them to be. ‑ Iridescent 13:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think Westward Ho! is quite interesting, myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the Victoria County History says that Turkey street was first recorded in 1427. ——SerialNumber54129 12:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not as unusual as you'd think; remember, Turkey Street connects Ermine Street and the Great North Road, and the area was traditionally the first/last stop for travellers between the North and London (hence the Eleanor Cross just up the road). Beneath the post-industrial shithole veneer of the corridor between Seven Sisters and Cheshunt, there are a surprising number of medieval survivals both in the placenames and the landscape. ‑ Iridescent 13:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- From a nearby pub called The Turkey (it only closed a couple of years ago). English place names are rarely as interesting as one expects them to be. ‑ Iridescent 13:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
| A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | .jpg)
|
|
|
File:Tomb of William de Roos, 6th Lord Roos in Bottesford church.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tomb of William de Roos, 6th Lord Roos in Bottesford church.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. bjh21 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Greetings !
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
|
Hello Serial Number 54129, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
.jpg)
Redrose64 🌹 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! -Fwth
Hey Serial Number 54129, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇
Flooded with them hundreds 09:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Hi Serial Number 54129, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
- Hi Serial Number, I'm so sorry you was supposed to have recieved this a day go!, Anyway I hope you and yours have a great Christmas and New Year :), Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: Yeah I see I was...150th on your list :p ;) many thanks, and to you too! ——SerialNumber54129 14:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Scary part is you're not far off .... 148 to be exact
, I have an offline list so I can only assume you were removed by mistake, Anyway sorry, Next year you'll be the first to get one! :), Anyway you're welcome and thanks so much, Take care, –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Scary part is you're not far off .... 148 to be exact
- @Davey2010: Yeah I see I was...150th on your list :p ;) many thanks, and to you too! ——SerialNumber54129 14:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The Signpost: 24 December 2018
- From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- News and notes: Some wishes do come true
- In the media: Political hijinks
- Discussion report: A new record low for RfA
- WikiProject report: Articlegenesis
- Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case
- Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents
- Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone
- Blog: News from the WMF
- Humour: I believe in Bigfoot
- Essay: Requests for medication
- From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again
- ...and I thought The Times had gone down hill... :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
|
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
|
Hello Serial Number 54129, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
December 2018
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Binod Basnet has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binod Basnet (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Binod Basnet: No, I will probably treat you in the manner to which you are currently becoming accustomed. The bottom line is that you should stop fucking about on other users' pages; yes, self-reverting is not usually an issue, but when it directly follows another refactoring of their talk page (on the phenomenally dubious grounds that, supposedly—but patently falsely—because
This user doesn't reply to the messages posted on his talk page
) then you can hardly expect your subsequent refactoring to be treated as anything other than trolling. That, my friend, is precisely the position you stand in now: edit-warring on someone else's talk, and it is not a position conducive to the retention of one's editing abilities. ——SerialNumber54129 19:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)- I thought you were one of the greatest Wikipedians. Think this is just a self revert. Edit summary is not highly inappropriate but your reply here is. Don't warn me about blocking just because you are more experienced. WBG is great editor. You are not happy with my warning then how can I be with yours. Take it easy. Happy editing. --Binod Basnet (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Re. John Ferrar and his hatnote
@John Ferrar (merchant):The purpose of the hatnote was to warn off visitors who might assume, as so many have, that the subject of this article was the father of William Farrar (settler). Kind of a public service for interested visitors of whom there are legion. There is a mistaken belief, rectified in the 1940's, but still held by many that Nicholas Ferrar's father, also named Nicholas was the father of said William. There is ambiguity, in the public sphere, but not on wikipedia. I have created an article for John Ferrar, father of said William, although he was a wealthy London Merchant, whose wealth financed his sons venture and even the transport of some 40 persons to Virginia. He is not a notable in his own right per the standards of WP, so the draft just sits there until I can find some references that make him notable Draft:John Ferrar (merchant), so my purpose was in fact disambiguation, but in the general realm, not WP, and it is in the general realm that the public come from to seek informaton and I think it good to not contribute to ambiguity. Dont' youOldperson (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, Oldperson, but the purpose of the hatnote is to disambiguate within Wikipedia...not without it :) Greetings of the Season for Eight Minutes Time. ——SerialNumber54129 23:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129:Got it. Understood Is there a way to include the comment in the body then? Or just leave it sit as is and let the public go on misdirectedOldperson (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- A footnote is best for this kind of broader context and background which does not dovetail with the main article 🍻 ——SerialNumber54129 00:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129:Got it. Understood Is there a way to include the comment in the body then? Or just leave it sit as is and let the public go on misdirectedOldperson (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Done. Thank you very much for your patience and guidanceOldperson (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for giving me credit for when Parliament of 1327 appears at TFA.
Is there any chance you could help me out at talk:Mike D'Orso? I am not sure what to do with the user who appears to be the subject of the article, whether it is appropriate to label them as a ghostwriter, or even if they are notable.
Thank you again, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
John Ferrer
Why did you revert my attempt to make a Heading on John Ferrar. are you also Bri.public? Who first made the change? It looked like vandalism to me since it is an almost insignificant change and the Virginia and the Self Governance of Virginians should have it's own heading. Why don't you think it doesn't. It was originally named Roll in the Virginia Company and somebody changed it. I didn't quibble with the change, but I don't understand the rationale behind your change. Thank youOldperson (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Merry
|
Happy Christmas! | |
| Hello Serial Number 54129, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas
Mr rnddude (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Farrarism
@Serial Number 54129: Is it inappropriate to make a non article comment explaining that I have corrected a critique as I did here [[7]] and which you deleted On another article a similar critique was made and subsequently corrected, however other editors came along and saw the critique and quoted it back to me without bothering to see that it was corrected. I think that making such a notice is entirely appropriate I am aware of The@Theroadislong:’s declination I am working on that.Oldperson (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2018 (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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)