Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Minsterworth 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts
Do you feel CULS is sufficiently independently notable enough? After about half-an-hour of seeking online sources, I don't think so but you ought to have a better opinion! Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 10:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I'd say unquestionably yes; whether or not you can find online sources should have no bearing on the notability of this (or any other) subject. Oxbridge societies aren't the equivalents of student societies elsewhere (except for American equivalents like Skull and Bones or the major fraternities), particularly the big ones like Footlights, the Boat Clubs, the Oxford Union, the Philosophical and Law societies, even the Bullingdon Club. These are the places where the relationships and peer networks that run the English-speaking world are formed—just look at how many entries we have in Category:Clubs and societies of the University of Cambridge and Category:Clubs and societies of the University of Oxford. In the particular case of CULS, you're not only talking about one of the largest student societies in the world, you're talking about the body which organises the Law Ball which is itself a notable event in its own right. ‑ Iridescent 12:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Obviously, notability is independent of online sources, by a mile.And, that's the reason for this post, since I didn't find any worthy reference about the society even at the digital archive of NLI.Though, I will admit that a lot of the pre-70s collections is yet to be digitized:)And, FIM is expected to have better access to sourcing. Anyways, per your extremely helpful comments, I am accepting the draft and it may be beneficial, if you choose to add references, as you see fit.Warm regards:)Winged BladesGodric 12:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lord.My memory not failing, I assure you that the gaffe won't be ever repeated again:) Long live Integer! Winged BladesGodric 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I pay you the compliment of knowing that you're far too intelligent for it to have been accidental :p Fly, my hawkmen! :) Although the size of this conversation is getting mildly ridiculous :D >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Interestingly, that text is actually larger than the text before/after it. And Zalgo has nothing on Zuul. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seems to be getting more and more meaningful, every moment:)Winged BladesGodric 17:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very meaningful and productive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And thank goodness for Drmiestypo-fighting :) otherwise where would we be, in amongst the tinyness! HE WAS amongst the tinyness... :p >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I almost knocked a few things over with my Very Big Button. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bigger button - a very very big button. presidential too Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a pain to source as most of the publications won't be online, (and the existence of the Law Society will mean any online searching has a zillion false positives), and to do it justice would probably mean wading through the "my undergraduate days" sections of stacks of memoirs. Except for the self-promoters at the Oxford Union and Footlights most student societies are fairly coy when it comes to public discussion of what they actually do. (From my admittedly anecdotal experience of living and working in central Cambridge, the main social activities of most of these groups are "getting so drunk they puke on their own shoes", "trying to fight locals and losing", "assuming any passing woman is a prostitute and propositioning her" and "falling in the road or occasionally the river".) The Rambling Man might know where to find sources on the Oxbridge societies from his work on the Boat Races. ‑ Iridescent 13:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)@Winged Blades of Godric: Apologies for the belated reply, had an early start and ended up in a bit of a tear up at the railway, it was classic. But, yes, I'm with Iridescent (not literally, that would be hideous :p ), it's almost impossible that something so closely connected with one of the oldest universities of the western world and of such pedigree (etc) couldn't be notable. But as said, something that old is likely to be covered heavily offline. I think a search of (*nodding to the previous reference*) the Law soc's own library would be a fruitful endeavour. As it satnds, I admit the article as it stands is heavily and indeed over-reliant on primary sourcing, but no way is this a lost cause. How are we anyway? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i guess you are technically a talk page watcher of your own page Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I can main-space the draft, over-writing the redirect but once it's in the NPP feed, if it meets the eye of any experienced NPP-er, (given the near-zero-web-presence and the outcome of the prev. AFD), there's a very good chance that the article will be immediately despatched to another AfD and once there, we will be in need of sources.So, either we wait for the time-being (until you and/or Iridescent can provide some reliable secondary source(s)) or choose to defend it at AFD.Which one do you prefer?Winged BladesGodric 15:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An old AfD as ridiculous and non-policy-based as that one was wouldn't have influence on any subsequent debate, and certainly wouldn't be enough to bring WP:G4 into play. There's a long-standing myth (perpetuated, it has to be said, by some of the more obsessively deletionist admins) that if something's kept at AfD it can keep being nominated until consensus changes in favour of deletion, but that once something's deleted by any means the earth is salted and it can never be re-created. This is complete pish; "consensus can change" works both ways, especially in an environment as prone to distortion as deletion, where the canvassing of half-a-dozen people with a grudge can create the appearance of consensus. If you're planning to work on any topic and you're confident that you can demonstrate notability, don't let the deletion of a former version put you off (this is a fairly notorious example; even Ed Sheeran has had the indignity of being speedy-deleted in the past). Ritchie333 and Andrew Davidson will know where to find the assorted policies, guidelines and precedents if you want to go down this particular rabbit hole. ‑ Iridescent 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been made aware of this discussion. I agree both that it is almost certainly notable and that the 2014 AFD will make it tricky to avoid it being deleted again. It seems like it does want someone with access to offline sources; by a happy coincidence I have easy access to the University Library and the Squire Law Library, and have sufficient spare time to devote some of it to trawling through archives. What I'm _not_ is any kind of lawyer; I'm not sure I would know where to look.
I will gladly act on suggestions as to where to look, or failing that go on a fishing expedition to see what I can turn up. However, I imagine the Draft's creator also has easy access to those libraries and is also a law student, so it might be better to ask them. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hii, sorry to just insert myself into the discussion - I received the link from Winged BladesGodric. I am the Cambridge University Law Society page's Draft creator. Thank you all for your thoughts; I was hoping for your opinion on whether these sources would suffice:
Academic coverage of CULS addresses by prominent individuals in the Cambridge Law Journal (copies of speeches republished as academic articles)
Coverage of the CULS by The Tab and Varsity newspaper (these specifically refer to the Law Ball's notability)
Use of Cambridge Law Journal only to establish presence of distinguished visitors and the early history of the Society
Link to the Cambridge University Students Union (which CULS currently redirects to), which refers to CULS events as "prolific" and "renowned university-wide".
Following your advice, I have also approached the Cambridge University archivists. They indicate that coverage of CULS events was historically done primarily through the Cambridge Law Journal, but that they may have copies of other ephemera such as flyers, event programmes or termcards.
Does this sound reasonable? I compared it with the references on the Cambridge University Students' Union page (which CULS currently redirects to) and the Cambridge Union page, and they appear to be comparable. I note that until a book on the Cambridge Union's history was produced in 2009 (by a former President of the Union), there was similarly scant secondary coverage.
The trouble is that much of this is not very good. Recordings of addresses - sure, they happened, but did independent sources care? The Tab and Varsity are perhaps not the very epitome of reliability when it comes to newspapers. The Cambridge Law Journal has been discussed on your own talk page. CUSU is hardly going to talk down a major University society. I fear this would simply see a third deletion nomination appear and result in redeletion.
If other law journals have found the activities of the society noteworthy that would be very useful. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts! Let me look a little further or explore ways to get some external coverage. Arjun Dhar (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't mean this by "get some", but you cannot go and generate any. By definition, if you generated it, it is not independent. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I meant that I would explore inviting media platforms to cover some of CULS events. CULS has many noteworthy activities, but we do not actively solicit media coverage of them. As most of these events are either limited to members or ticketed, media platforms do not receive access to them. Perhaps it would help if we gave them access?Arjun Dhar (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you removed massive amounts of content from the article to revert to last stable version when there was no activity on the article, I assume it was a good faith error but please be more careful using Twinkle. (Unfortunately I reverted while logged into my alt account on mobile phone so I am leaving you a note about it) SeraphWiki (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on both talk pages, but didn't call them or this, "shitty messages", as well as delighting in the fact that, whilst we probably all wish talk pages could be drama free, the one certain way of reducking drama... is not to cause it. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
I was looking over the most recent RfA and noticed with your !vote you were saying XTools reported you as the ninth top editor to WP:ANI. What's actually happening is XTools is only parsing the most recent 50,000 edits. There is a red banner at the top that explains this, which I'm assuming you missed. I have made this banner bigger and bolder, so hopefully it will be more obvious now. Should you have any other ideas on how to make it more clear that the data is limited, let me know :) Pinging Iridescent in case they have any input.
I wanted to also point out that in the "Top editors" table, there is a link to the Top Edits tool, which shows you all the edits that user made to that page. E.g. see [1] for your edits to ANI. This will give you an exact count. I see that Iridescent was using Sigma's usersearch to get this information, which is totally fine (I don't mean to discourage use of other tools), I just wanted to make you both aware of Top Edits since the link to it is right there in the Page History interface. Regards — MusikAnimaltalk 18:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MusikAnimal, only 4% edits there after all. Sorry, I must have missed that box but I do see what you mean. I hope you didn't take it personally- I wasn't really criticising the tool, more my (apparent!) over-indulgence at the dramaboard :) Thanks very much for going to the trouble of filling in me in with the details, extra information is always nice, leads to a more well-rounded perspective you know. Take care of youself! Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely basking in greatness :) "imitation, the sincerest form of flattery," etc., although whether Wilde or Colton said it first I don't know... thanks for that page though. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn't Wilde, given that he was born 20 years after Colton's death and Colton undoubtedly said it; the only thing at issue is whether Colton invented the phrase or pinched it from André Dacier. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... didn't Wilde add a bit about ...."that X can pay to greatness." Where X = a 19C. synonym for dumbass. Mind you, I seem to remember that OW was accused of plagarising other peoples' quotes too? Maybe that's what got me. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OW undoubtedly plagiarised his quotes, and was renowned for it even during his lifetime. (Whistler pricked this bubble of Wilde very neatly and epigrammatically at a Paris salon last season presided over by a well known and popular lady. Whistler had been notably witty during the evening and finally made a bon mot more than usually pointed and happy that convulsed his listeners. Wilde, who was present, approved Mr. Whistler’s brightness, and wondered why he had not thought of the witticism himself. ‘You will,’ promptly replied Whistler, ‘you will.’ This lightning comment on Mr. Wilde’s wonderful ability to think of other people’s bright things and to repeat them as his own had, you may imagine, an immediate and most discomforting effect on Mr. Wilde.J. M’Neill Whistler: The London Artist Coming to America to Lecture, The Sunday Herald, Boston MA, 24 Jan 1886, p.14.) ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for that, that must be what I was thinking of... acc. GoodReads, Oscar's was "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness." I wonder if that was almost an admission... >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SN. I agree with your statement on Oshwah's talk page. Oshwah is so conscientious about replies to posts there so I was trying to save him some hunting time. I almost mentioned forum shopping but thought there were enough flames in the situation already. I hope didn't make things worse but apologize if I did. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No way, MarnetteD, you were actually being rather subtle, and I turned up in a pair of size thirteens :) which I realsie now but didn't at the time, sorry about that. In any case, your view certainly seems to be the accepted one, rightly so. Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries SN. Thanks for settling my conscious. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, Serial Number 54129. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Doug Wellertalk 14:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confused
My response (look at the time stamp) came before your own. Is there something I'm missing as to why your comment should supercede my own in response to Golden Ring? -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 15:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what is this, Winkelvi?! -poking, or what :D Tbh, your response @AN/I could have drifted slightly closer to the Bay of Good Faith: I read GR's question—whilst slightly misguided to those that have seen the .gif all over the place, perhaps—as a legitimate one, in the circs. I'm not sure that you really needed to immediately accuse him of stirring the shitpot :) What's he done to you? Serious question—I assume there must be something, you don't normally fly off the handle. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear, I never said shitpot, that was your addition. Something else we need to be clear on is that I have no ulterior motive here. As far as I know, Golden Ring and I have never interacted previously. At least not in my memory. Something else you should consider is that if so many people already have the American flag gif on their own user space, why would one more person putting it on theirs be poking the bear in any way? They likely aren't, and neither am I. Not that I need to explain why I put it there, but I do feel as if you're trying to build a case against me here, and I just wanted to clear that up as well. My comments to Golden Ring were merely to point out that because the discussion he seems to be trying to reopen was so contentious, and needed to be closed fairly rapidly, and it was... that I didn't see any good purpose in addressing anything more at the discussion. What he asked about could have been done plenty of other places in Wikipedia, it could have even been done on Sir Joseph's talk page, but it wasn't. Yes, I probably did lack some good faith in my question to Golden Ring, and for that I'll take the blame. But everything else that you have insinuated here is not very good faith-ish, either. Now back to the question of why you think your comment supersedes mine even though the timestamp states differently as does the guideline on talk pages and the manual of style. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 16:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
a) Well, etymologically-speaking, stirring is stirring, whatever the contents of one's pot. b) I agree that GR's comment was overall unnecessary. c) I neither desire nor need to build a case against you. d) I'm also aware of how many editors use the flag gif, since I already pointed it out. e) The discussion is, as you wished, closed, which I too am grateful for. Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously underestimated how much drama could come of an honest question about gifs interacting with the skin. It's really not that big a deal and wasn't ever meant to be. Sorry I ever mentioned it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evergreen School AfD
Hi, I'm surprise that you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evergreen_Public_School per NAC because the moment a discussion gets valid !votes for and against it is essentially "controversial". While I would probably have come to the same conclusion had I NAC'd it, I'm also surprised with your comment about no-one invoking WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, bearing in mind that this !vote was citing it in all but name, as that person regrettably continues to do on a fairly regular basis despite participating in and knowing the result of the RfC which deprecated it. That !vote is also essentially contrary to WP:OSE.
It's up to you but it might be worth bearing this in mind if you close any similar discussions in the future. That !vote should have been discounted, imo. Perhaps also some of the others. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Barring our serial-supporter at school-AFDs who can transform any quasi/non-existent school into an encyclopedic one, there are some highly-vocal editors who think that all secondary schools are by-default notable, just if they could be proved to exist. And, when one gets a school-AFD where the subject has quite a few GHits (their triviality/ covg. levels be damned), that's never a case of delete, as here.Unless more and more editors choose to actively participate in these AFDs and uphold the usual rules of notability, the RFC will continue to be twisted by certain discussants and consensus will reinforce consensus.Winged BladesGodric 17:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The highly-vocal editors who think that all secondary schools are by-default notable, just if they could be proved to exist have a perfectly valid point of view, and you'd do well not to sneer at them; while there's a legitimate and ongoing debate about whether it should apply to schools, it's the argument that's the basis of every subject-specific notability guideline, and rejecting it would be a fundamental change to the nature of Wikipedia. As with every other SNG, the argument here is that since a secondary school is by definition one of the most important institutions in its community, it can always be reasonably presumed that there will always be at least one piece of significant, non-trivial, independent coverage in a reliable source (i.e., the "New School Opens" feature on the front page of the local paper on the relevant day), and consequently provided that it demonstrates that the school has at some point existed, any mention in a reliable source no matter how trivial is sufficient to demonstrate notability. By all means debate whether this principle should apply to schools, but be aware that abolishing "sources can reasonably be presumed to exist" as a concept would totally change the nature of Wikipedia (it would wipe out about 90% of our sports biographies and 75% of railway station articles, for a start), and also be aware that if you disagree with the principle then you, not the people with whom you're arguing, are the one who's currently out of step with existing consensus. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent:Nah..Sources are presumed to exist is a quite good reason (systemic bias et al) and I've myself used it.Additionally, my point is solely about Schools-AFDs. Anyways, irrespective of the particular venue, certain use of discretion and common-sense is necessary.Clinging to every school AFD to !vote on the same grounds without any slightest bother to the details does not strike to me as satisfying either.Winged BladesGodric 19:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely go to a closer's talk page after an AfD close, but this one seemed so odd that I wanted to try to understand why an easy delete was closed as NC. I wasn't surprised to see this discussion starting here. If you look at all the sources, you see that not one is more than a passing mention about the school - and they are just trivial mentions. Sitush has been doing a good job culling the flotsam, but the other remaining sources are really poor also. WP:GNG clearly states there must be more coverage to pass. I don't have any skin in the game besides a bias towards consistency, and so am not going to challenge this with a formal AfD review request, but if you actually read each source you may reassess your decision. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but reading the sources is not the role of the closer, who should be uninvolved. A part of the problem is that those who commented either don't understand GNG or were wilfully ignoring it while registering their support for the thing. The closer would not realise this unless people pointed it out in the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did, which is why the NC close surprised me. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean you. I was referring to those who favoured keeping the thing. Either way, that aspect of the close is not Serial Number 54129's problem for the reason I gave. If closers started running a fine-tooth comb through the article sources then they could potentially be applying a supervote. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I understand. Do you think the best way for the process to work is if the contested AfD closes are formally challenged, rather than bringing them to the closer's attention on their talk page? I've never closed an AfD myself, but I know that it's not simply a vote count, because otherwise it could be automated. I'm just trying to understand how much of correct policy has to be taken into account by a closer, and what the best recourse is when its not, without pissing off anyone that I don't know for an article I really don't have must stake in. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll have to check out the new(er) Twilight Zone series PaleoNeonate. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 17:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a noticeboard for review of contested deletions but I don't think there is a parallel board for contested keeps (which is the effective outcome of "no consensus" also, bizarrely given the underlying thesis of WP:BURDEN). In my experience, people who close at AfD and then are challenged on reasonable grounds (especially if the close was a NAC) tend to revert their closure and leave it for review. It would appear that the closer on this occasion has no intention of doing that, given their lack of response to this thread but continued activity elsewhere. I guess the only option for someone sufficiently concerned would be to re-nominate the article for a second AfD. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush and Timtempleton: Not at all, I have been following the discussion closely and with great interest, and I'm honoured that you chose to hold it here. Normally, per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd've given my reasons—and probably done nothing else, since I never close a discussion unless I'm absolutely sure of myself (by which internal logic, of course, nothing woud need to be done). However, although I haven't contributed to these discussions, that was a deliberate decision so as in order to not invoke AA too soon. At this stage, I am mindful of your arguments—nuanced as they are towards, for example, the lack of a DRV for disputed keeps—and am comfortable in overturning my close. I don't, I admit, hold out much hope that further discussion will land firmy enough in the delete corner to create a paradigmatic shift; but it's certainly worth exploring. Thanks again for being here: apologies if I should have squeaked sooner, but I wanted your examination to play out without my—obviously somewhat partisan!—opinion. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My dear friend
I did not think it was necessary to wheel war over AN/I discussion closure; for this case, it was fine; but when are you going to run for RfA? Hundreds of us have been asking you and perhaps, GreenMeansGo. Alex Shih (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: Look: I really must apologise about the ANI close. I assure you—no excuse that it is—that I didn't realise that You had already closed it, that SoV had re-opened it, and then I turned up in size thirteens :) I saw the thread, went to the RfC, saw you'd closed that, and went back to the ANI thread... and closed it :o I'm afraid you and "hundreds" of others are now in the company of someone who didn't check the page history. A page one error! -and one which I will be rightfully condemned for. Sorry about that. Hope SarekoV didn't think I was stepping on their toes too. wel, clearly i did; but not deliberately. Nice message though: thanks! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're doing... a joint RfA so we can fail together an console one another. GMGtalk 21:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you are all bound and determined to fall on your sword like that, this'll cut the sword budget considerably.... Anmccaff (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then they're stuck together and would have to abide by the two-man rule for any administrative actions. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...exemplifies perfectly, your removal of a discussion which dared to challenge the anti-infobox mania. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I would have rated this comment of your's as an example of trolling of the lowest class, if not your pathetic attempt at the same shit-stirring, hours after a RFC on the issue has been closed was a serious competitor.Winged BladesGodric 14:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mate. This is the place for classic come-backs. Classic come-backs alone. You know, like The Irons winning the cup; Mark E Smith getting a fourth wife; Bill Clinton receiving dry-cleaningCustomer of the Year; Jimmy Wales being allowed to block people on Wikipedia. OK, that last one's probably stretching it. But that there—yours, just there—really, just doesn't qualify. No way. Playground stuff! A come-back? As much chance as Gary Glitter. A classic? An Austin Allegro would have more chance. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Winged's comments qualify as "classic" comebacks, then the standard has dropped significantly. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Please don't. This is an active discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explained here; thank you for making a more reasonable point than that in the section above, which does not, of course, endear itself to receiving anything approaching a civil reply. Or even a reply at all. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not validation. The subject of this note was your archiving, not the merits of your position. Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so; it was estblished that it was not in fact an active discussion. That suffices, and I thank you for your note. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative action
Hello Serial Number 54129, in User_talk:Nagualdesign#Synopsis, you write "[...] any admiistrative action should have taken place". As I stated in my block message, I wasn't happy about it, but saw no other choice. I would have preferred an earlier, less severe administrative action. So I'd be very interested in which administrative action you feel would have been appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs) 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SebastianHelm: Clearly, I feel no administrative action should have taken place then either. Even less so, hours later with an absolute paucity of justification. The point I was making was that that was the time for reprimanding ND, not this morning. Also, could you please remember to sign you post with four tildes, not five as you have just done :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's nervous. EEng 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, and for your common sense. Much appreciated. nagualdesign 17:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, common-sense can't in that short a supply can it. Oh, wait...
Never mind humour, nagualdesign, or sense: I luuuvethis, can I shamelessly steal it? Well, obviously not that shamelessly or I wouldn't ask :p but you get my drift. It's brilliant! How'd you do it? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather pleased with it myself. Gerda gave me a link to this page the other day and I noticed the "approved cabal for improvement" stamp of approval, so I... umm... borrowed it. You're welcome to use it or change it as you see fit. nagualdesign 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem around here might be wearing it out through over-use!!! :D Thanks very much! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While the pyramid contains some truth, it's not as straightforward as you guys think. For example, I've had veteran editors swear up and down with a straight face they weren't edit warring despite article history indicating otherwise. When I give them diffs and a pointer to WP:EW it's still, "that isn't edit warring!". At that point it's basically, "Look, I'm an admin, I say you're edit warring, revert again and you'll be blocked." So essentially we're at the top of the pyramid but what's the alternative? --NeilNtalk to me 19:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All joking aside, I have no problem with having admins. I think they're a good idea. The only problem is when you get the odd bad apple, and the solution to that is composting. It can be difficult to hold them accountable though. nagualdesign 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian told me earlier that "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so", which I can only assume implies a kind of 1RR. At that point it's basically, "Look, I'm an.. oh wait, you're the admin!" Even Ivan, who seems like a decent sort (even though he blocked me a few weeks ago), unblocked me today, confirming that the block was a load of bollocks, but still tried to assert that I was in the wrong for talking back! nagualdesign 20:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)} I don't think Ivan said you were wrong, I believe Ivan said it was unwise. Being "right" and being "wise" are different concepts. Anyway, welcome back to the land of the living, and happy editing. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he said, "this is your second recent block for what amounts to "talking back" to an administrator who was trying to give you advice" (ie, top of the pyramid). nagualdesign 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::Sorry (you'll like this NeilN ;) )—I've been away creating content ;) actually, getting into a right tizz over a Henry Howard and a Robert Howard who may be the same person :o —but the thing about 3RR, nagualdesign, and it being possible to edit-war without being in breach of it, is true. If the intention has been demonstated to edit-war, then the number of reverts is academic: think of those edit wars in which two parties only revert each other say, every two days,but they do so for a period of weeks. Bizarre, I know, but it's happened. That probably what SH was trying to say. I agree with the analogy of "bent cops"—or, more expansively, in any walk of life (I'm talking generally now, rather than in the confines of today's events) there's always people who get promoted beyond their abilities, or they get promoted accordng to a criteria that subsequently changes but they don't. The latter, I think, is generally what we encounter on WP. It's rarely (if ever, surely?) malice; hardly ever incompetence; but mostly just being used to operating in a Wikipedia from another age. Rember the old saw, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there"...? That sums a lot of shit up, and not just on WP. Now, those bloody Howards.... >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks; I hadn't come across that before... it explains most of the bloody railway managers I've ever had :D >SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign: See, Sebastian was right. Look at WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." If six editors all revert each other once then they're all edit warring. However I don't think edit warring is always a bad thing and have no hesitation in stating that I sometimes edit war to keep cruft out of Wikipedia. WP:1RR and WP:3RR are what happens if you take edit warring too far. --NeilNtalk to me 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well for what it's worth, if I recall correctly, I reverted Sebastian only once, then later I reverted his sock an IP user only once for removing an entirely different comment. You (Neil) also reverted that IP after they removed the same comment that Sebastian had removed. Does that mean you, me, Sebastian and the IP were edit warring? nagualdesign 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign: Yes, and I have no hesitation in stating that. Edit warring is a normal part of editing on Wikipedia. Anyone who says different is either fooling themselves or lives in Arbcom a glass tower. :-) But you can't let your edit warring become disruptive. --NeilNtalk to me 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget the context here. This was Sebastian's final edit for the day before he went off to wash his socks. He's basically blaming me for an edit that you made, telling me that I should read the guidelines (this was just after he said I "have friends who help [me] avert WP:3RR"). I've only ever reverted Sebastian once. I fail to see how I was being disruptive. nagualdesign 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign: My comments were not intended to address this specific situation. I'm sorry if I implied that. I was simply saying that an editor can edit war without approaching WP:3RR. --NeilNtalk to me 21:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that part. And I'm sure you can understand that when I was discussing this with Sebastian earlier on my talk page he was very much talking about me. I only brought it up here to counterpoint your "I've had veteran editors swear up and down with a straight face they weren't edit warring despite article history indicating otherwise." Anyway, let's just get on with life, eh? The only thing left for me to say about this is thank you for being one of the good ones. nagualdesign 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that link is so not to Grand Central, where I'm headed in and out of tomorrow. Should be an interesting day getting to and from work, with the Women's March going on tomorrow. Write on. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it's sort of our equivalent :) except made of wood and plasterboard. As it says when you pull in: "Welcome to 1975." Safe trip! I think I've completely ballsed up Robert Howard (knight), but it'll wait til tomorrow. Good luck! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now that I've worked out that Harry and Rob are (were!) two different people ;) only slightly embarassing then. My excuse is that the dog was sitting on the family tree at the time. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 23:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dolly Rudeman 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Dolly Rudeman. c.1920-c.1930.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dolly Rudeman. c.1920-c.1930.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SN, Although not stated I did effectively withdraw the AFD - Had I been aware of the history I would've held off going to AFD and redirected myself :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought on it I realised that me redirecting wasn't me withdrawing .... somehow I apparently confused myself!, Anyway thanks for spotting that I've reclosed the AFD as Speedy Keep and then undone the article redirect and then redid it .... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Cheers: Don't really matter though, the creator (I think) had a COI bigger than fucking Big Ben. Should still be sacked. Take care! Always good work with you 23:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, it's been over a month since you said it might take some time to address the three "citation needed" templates, and for a DYK, that's quite a long time. At this point, I think it's fair to give you until the end of January to finally address this issue, which was raised well before then. I hope very much to see progress by then. Please reply on the nomination itself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article Dolly Rudeman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dolly Rudeman 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
S'yours too—couldn't have done it without you- my Dutch is no better now than then, ongelooflijk ;) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
For publicly saying you think I'm civil despite charges of censorship and hypocrisy ;) We hope (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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!
A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Jogi.jewels, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Pontvallain 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 Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bottle of pills. Its been great to see that wiki is so teeming with Fall fans, and I see Hit the North and Totally Wired now have articles. This made me splurt a mouthful of the aforementioned medicine, for a number of reasons. PS, gutted about Cassianto. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Loved your line too. It's great to see those articles, and I like the sound of a few more appearing in the near future. I can't really help, I'm afraid, not having a musical bone in my body (so just like-!) ...yes; appears to have Left the Capitol. Hopefully not for ever, but. Incidentally, for the main article,I came across something a while back tha compared his fragmented lyric style with Joyce and Eliot. Not necessarily as holding comparative place in the cultura paean, but as an modern exemplar of the style. No idea where it's from now... Cheers Ceoil. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I will leave this fucking dump" - Dublin is our London! That said I do *love* London, but I get the Manc POV; miserable bastards, as of course are Corkonians. Can wait until Dublin burns to the ground and we inherit the earth. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you rather underestimate our recent advances in cow and sheep catapulting technology. I'll say no more, insider trading and that, but if I ws you and had a local Paddy Powers....Dublin is dust. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Well, as I say, I do like London, and have family living there. Especially love Brixton Academy, the acoustics, mind was blown when the Primals did Screamadelica a few years ago, was on some dodgy yokes but it didn't matter. Yes I am an old bastard. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing
I see that you're struggling again with the referencing in John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu. In the #Arms section you've got an sfn which starts but doesn't finish, and a ref which finishes without having started. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David; it's a work in progress atm, and the 'in use' template rather smacks of ownership, no? But we'll see what it looks like at draw of stumps :) thanks for looking out! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually check the Journal articles to verify the term "male expendability"? I have not seen anything with that term, rather it appears to me to be original research. Atsme📞📧 14:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting...my Google search brought up a variety of terms, including "male disposablity", "disposable male myth", and so on. That's what made me wonder if maybe it was an attempt to coin the phrase. I went to ProjectMed thinking maybe it was a medical or psychological issue, and so far, got this response, so I went to Project Sociology for more input. The title may well be notable enough. Atsme📞📧 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can be, for sure, but still. *clinky glass* Kafka Liz (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kafka Liz: Any chance—my belated idea, my abscondment—that you could remind Ceoil, that if his damp records the past; then we have the biggest library yet. The Biggest Library Yet. Hup hup! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could make The Wiki Great Again, ooo rah! Kafka Liz (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Winged Blades of Godric: and Serial number. You both removed the speedy on the above article. The original CSD was at 87 % and was originally removed as a reverse copyvio which it wasn't which is why I replaced it as it was an error on the part of the editor. WBoG then changed his edit on my talk page to say that it was a simple quote that could be removed, as I pointed out it was nearly all the article and not a simple quote. He then removed part of the copy vio to drop it down to 66 % as I said on the talk page the article creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and I have serious doubts about his notability. So I believe that I was justified in replacing it and as I don't beilieve he is notable I will not rewrite the sodding thing because that is not what I am here for. Copyvio is a good way of catching and removing indesirable content and one of the first things that we are told to look for as new pages patrollers. Now you have removed the tag the history contains all the copyvio and I think you should ask for it to be redacted. As per this discussion that you may both have missed on the NPP talk page it has been suggested that articles created by socks should be deleted as per WP:DENY even if they are notable. This was a golden opportunity to remove it quickly and easily. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I and Latreia were the editors who discovered the mess and launched the SPI as well as the concurrent cleanup, believe me when I say that someone is notable.Obviously, you can take him to AFD.~ Winged BladesGodric 13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have already said that the first decline was either a mis-click or a script-error.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I do not see the connexion. Just because you reported the article creator as being a sock puppet I should believe you when you say that the article that he created is notable? I think I am missing something here. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further, sans the quote and the list (which shan't be ever included whilst checking for G12), check the copyvio % again and whether it deserved a G12.Furthermore, as to copyvio is a good way of catching and removing indesirable content, desirability isn't decided by you and the venue is that way.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Did you read the NPP talk page thread that I posted? Did you read WP:DENY? Of cource if the article is rewritten then there will be no copy vio, that is not the point I am trying to make. And I still don't understand why I have to believe you when you say he is notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was excessive use of non-free text under a fair use claim (quotes and citations). We typically just remove the text and make a note on the talk page in those cases. The stuff that wasn’t the quote didn’t pass the threshold of originally. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Diannaa just finished the cleanup with revdel, so should be good moving forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis, Winged Blades of Godric, and TonyBallioni: Thanks for this ladies and gentlemen. Glad it's all sorted out out now; bad time to go for a sandwich huh. The only thing left unsaid perhaps is in regards to the speedies themselves. The original G12 clearly did not appply after the first reduction; G5 applies but slightly subjectively relies on what is considered to be "substantial" input from other editors; and A7 would almost certainly have been removed—I would have, as it proffers a credible claim of significance-which is all it needs to do to avoid A7. AfD is, of course, as the feller says, thataway. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this editor hadn't been a confirmed sockpuppet I would probably agree with you but should we be wasting our time with probably non-notable articles that were 87% copied form elsewhere by a sockpuppet? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do agree that WP:G5 was the best criterion to have filed under (and yes, you should probably have done so orignally!) As I said, though, it's not infallible, as it rather peskilly rests on the "no substantial edits by others" qualification, which can be—debatable? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking per the rules, G5 would be an invalid criterion.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; master wasn't blocked when the page was created. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that's why I didn't use it. I believe that is only for when a user creates a sock to continue editing after having been blocked for any reason and this sock is then blocked. But the sockmaster has to have been blocked beforehand. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different things: if a sock creates articles and the master is found to be socking, you'll have difficulty in avoiding a stampede of admins (collective noun?) to delete the articles of the sock (not the master), whether the article was created post- or ante-blocking. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Radmin 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 Draft:Radmin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and save.
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! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; the topic itself may be valid, but it's hard to tell since the bulk of the citations are to the company itself, their forum, their manuals, etc. Bluntly, we don't care what a company says about itself, we care what outside experts have to say about it. Detailed explanations of a product line, with no indication these details are taking the media by storm, are usually big red flags that a page is an advert rather than a neutral description. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My bust, I thought you were the originator since you're listed as the Submitter. I was wondering why such a draft from an experienced editor. Ah well, back to the salt mines go I. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The system generates milestone(??)-notifications up till how many edits?~ Winged BladesGodric 15:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it stops at 1k IIRC. The worst is moving an image on commons and getting a half dozen notifications thanking you for your contributions to the Klingon wiki quote, ASL wiktionary, and ancient Egyptian wikipedia... over... and over again. GMGtalk 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the system pinged me to come here? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see--I get a notification anytime "cute" is used outside of article space. One of the developers must have liked me. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Klingon wiki quote, ASL wiktionary, and ancient Egyptian wikipedia" - well that's my day made! simple things, simple minds - TNT❤ 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a notification that I'd made a slightly higher number of edits (it does go beyond 1K, evidently) - pity it didn't notify me for [number]-1, so the actual jubilee edit could have been something more interesting than a boring COI warning... ;-) --bonadeacontributionstalk 20:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: as the most comprehensive commentator on a previous PR, but open to all my TPS with experience of these things. (So probably about three then!)
Iridescent, you may remember that some time ago you were kind enough to look at the peer review I opened (here). As a result of some of your suggestions (particularly re. Chaucer, background and aftermath), I discovered much more material which substantially (~50%) increased (hopefully in an improvement) the article. To which end, I transferred work to my sandbox. Now, the point is, is that that's still unfinished (the aftermath is complicated), and I think I've bitten off more than I could chew for what may have ended up as a first FAC.
So the question is—whether it would be ethical or etiquette to ask for another PR of a different article (I was thinking maybe this chap?), even though the last one didn't actually "go" anywhere. Do you see what I mean? Basically—in light of being a FAV—would it be OK to start over which something a little more manageable in size? Any advice or suggestions would be most welcome from anybody on this. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't personally see any issue with it. FAC has rules against serial nominations to stop people flinging multiple articles at it to see what sticks, but PR is a purely voluntary process and if anyone isn't interested in the topic they'll just ignore it. If you're concerned about developing a reputation for spamming, just round up assorted people who you feel are likely to have something useful to say and ask them to comment. Giano, Ealdgyth, Eric Corbett, Brianboulton and SlimVirgin are a few who spring to mind who might have something useful to say. (All ((noping))ed at this stage, in case you don't want to draw attention to it until you're ready.) ‑ Iridescent 11:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that Iridescent. No reason for secrecy, in fact the more the merrier I think :) It'll be a learning curve for me, so every little helps as some might say. My concern was more that editors might be put off going to the trouble of commenting at the PR if their previous efforts seemed to have been wasted or ignored; i.e., a feeling that there's no point in commenting as "it'll just end up in a sandnbox anyway"? Thanks again, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purely in my personal opinion, I think peer review as currently constituted is largely a dead horse. A process like that has a lot of value for new-ish editors asking "did I do this right and how can I do it better?" questions, but at FA level I find it easier to just post "hey, I just wrote an article on Droxford railway station, what do you think of it?" on the talkpages of people who I know are likely to take an interest. While Wikipedia has thousands of editors, in any given field the number of people is usually small enough that you can track them all down fairly easily. ‑ Iridescent 13:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this to this is rather inspirational :) well, I think I'll open a pr for now and bear that in mind for the future...I'll have to find a few medievalists I guess; shame that this is the state of the (most) relevant wikiproject. I'll do that dyk now. Thanks again, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People don't tend to watch the small subprojects. To be honest, in this case a comment on User talk:Ealdgyth will be just as effective a notification as spamming every project, since anyone with any involvement in medieval England is either going to have worked with her or to have been in an argument with her, and in either case will have her talk page watchlisted. ‑ Iridescent 14:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't THINK I've had that many arguments with people over medieval English topics... certainly not as much as rumbles through the horse stuff (see Skowronek for an example...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. I'm already deep into Polish ... something - (I can't figure out if its nationalism or what it is) at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp, and a not-related but still tangental to Poland horse argument at Talk:Skowronek (horse). The "purity" of the Arabian horse arguments are something that is quite insane looking to outside observers, I'm sure. But it's a big big big deal in the Arabian horse world and gets quite as much ink spilled over it as some of the worst of the Israel-Palestine stuff... just because it's horses doesn't mean people don't push POVs... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Polish government recently criminalized making any claim that the holocaust was anything other than a purely German affair (the innocuously-titled Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance). Consequently, there's a freshly-raging culture war on whether the concentration camps were in "annexed German" or "occupied Polish" territory as the latter implies a connection between the holocaust and Poland. That's a fight I'd stay well away from; this will be another Kiev/Kyiv unresolvable dispute where each side has a sincere belief that it will be a breach of morals if they back down. (If you really want a fight about events that happened a thousand years ago, I'm sure I can rustle up some Bulgarians for you.) ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that Ealdgyth's opinions on any medieval article are worth their weight in gold. (Marks, presumably...) It'll be an honour and a pleasure; We almost collaborated before, and she's been kind enough to compliment me on a previous thing, so hopefully it won't be too painful or hardwork :) thanks for all your advice Iridescent. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to it soonish. Hoping to go see Black Panther tonight so... (all depends on if the hubby doesn't get bogged down at work...) Heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I am sorry. I am just waiting for that "state of mind" (the hours before a deadline) :-( Alex Shih (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Alex Shih I told you it wasn't urgent—just pulling your leg :)—and as I said, I've got plenty to be doing; look, I haven't even moaned about this, and that makes you look like Speedy Gonzales!!! Mind you, expecting anyone to sully their hands witth anything as sordid as GAs when they've got Infobox II around the corner is probably slightly naive! Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sorry you asked me yet? If it's too much, let me know and I'll be happy to stop. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Thanks Ealdgyth, no way, your PR is absolute gold dust, please. Just to say, I'm working on it as we spaek, but I'm doing it in big chunks and haven't save the page yet (whiiiich I should probably do ASAP). thing is, I'm likely to expand bits here and there (his crap inheriatnce and the Fitzalan dispute, I think mainly)—you'll be OK with that? Thanks again, it's exactly what I wanted-an Iridescent-syle forensic dissection. After all, it will only make it stronger in the long run, won't it. How was Black panther, btw?—worthy of the hype? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BP was very very good. I'm not sure it was quite up to Civil War or either of the Guardians, but it was very very close. We had some technical glitches and got started late and then missed about 5 minutes near the end (because the computer didn't realize we'd started late...) so we got passes to see it again We did see the two end credit scenes, though. It's possible seeing the missing bits at the end will make me rate it a bit higher... we'll see. Looks like we'll go Sunday or Monday to see it in 3D then too. (We almost always see Marvel movies at least twice - I saw Guardians 2 four times, and Wonder Woman five - it's the only way to catch most of the in-jokes). I'd say worthy of the hype.... but not something for folks who haven't liked the other MCU movies...Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off on more PR until you're done with the changes you're working on... don't want to cause edit conflicts as I fix small stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ealdgyth, I'm all done there for now—see what you think—happy saturday! Cheers,
Hi, Paul Austin, good to hear—hope you're well. Sorry for the belated reply—I was out yesterday afternoon / evening. What am I looking at in that article? I mean, one such as that needs very strong sourcing, and at a cursory glance seems to have it. Got any views on it yourself? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Ragon, Abbot of Vale Royal 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 Ultimograph5 -- Ultimograph5 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be relatively soon. I've taken on a number of GAN's (21 at current count), yours are #7, 9, and 11. I should be able to get to them this weekend. -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 16:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Ferrers, 5th Baron Ferrers of Groby 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jean Creton 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the 38—you wait for ages and three come along at once! :) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Name
Have you actually changed your user name or what? Deb (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nosing around, I saw that one of your recent GA noms was for Robert de Umfraville. The mame caught my attention because, in intervals between drudgery, I've been researching the life of a minor 20th century novelist, Louis Wilkinson, whose middle name was Umfreville. The name is very unusual to find in one born in 1881, and despite the slightly different spelling I am wondering if there is some family connection with the de Umfravilles. Wilkinson's father was a Suffolk clergyman who did not carry the Umfreville name – it may have come from his mother's family. I realise that five centuries is a long time, but if you know of any information on the later history of the de Umfravilles, I'd be pleased if you could point me to it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sory to say, Brianboulton, that I know almost nothing about the family or its name—excet what I wrote in that article. I seem to remember I came to him via a redlink in another thing I did, so never really looked much further back. Or forward! If you've been trying to trace a connnection between the English Unfravilles and the Suffolk Umfreville with no joy, do you think it might be worth looking at the Scottish Umfravilles? They were the earliest branch, but that could suggest an even greater number of branches may have eventually survived. After all, the Eng Umfravilles had no cadet branches and QED nothing remains of them today. See what i mean? Best of luck with the research. A delight of obscurantism! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Probably a brain fart but I thought I'd give you a heads up - you tagged this as U5, but it's in draftspace. Unquestionably promotional though so I've G11'd instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, PreChaos...was this meant for me though?—I can't find any mention of it or the user in my contribs :) and surely a draft can't be U5'd in any case? I'm easilly confused on a Sunday morning! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's deleted so it won't show up in your contribs, but I just double checked and it was yours. Weirdly the edit summary says G5 but the tag on the page definitely says U5. Not sure how that happened. I just tested and you can't normally put Ux-tags on Drafts from Twinkle, so possibly a Twinkle glitch. No big deal, doesn't matter in the end what caused it, just thought I'd heads-up you :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I appreciate it anyway; Twilight Zone, yeah—Thanks, PMC, have a good (remainder of a) weekend. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you too! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was this accidental?
No. It was an attempt to clear up the promotional material for the band by an editor who has done little else. It points only to their bandcamp page and a listing which lists them as having 0 fans. It hasn't been edited on 2.5 years. So, no, it wasn't a mistake. Since you think it'll improve I'll move it to draft an we can see how it fares. Cabayi (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: Thanks for this. A couple of points: i)I didn't say it would improve, I said that I would strip it of its spammy verbiage when I get back to a desktop. ii) WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP (see also WP:ATD). iii) My edit summary also expressed doubts as to its notability; but then, WP:N expressly does not apply to userspace. iv) 2.5 years = WP:NODEADLINE, perhaps (also see WP:STALE). v) Ultimately, regardless of all the points you made, WP:G11 is intentionally and fundamentally narrow, and your nomination did not meet the critera (clearly does not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with WP:NOTFORPROMOTION"). Cheers!—and happy editng. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you think it isn't eligible for G11. However, I nominated it as U5. Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but look at it like: a crap article—is still an article (although crap). However, yes, I forgot the criteria you used, apologies. Tbh, of course, U5 is equally strict, if slightly vague: what part of WP:NOT would have applied? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I look at it as a user page. Of the author's 23 contributions (20 still visible) 17 were devoted to this band, 16 of those in user space. A band which, by the author's best efforts wouldn't reach a "credible claim of significance", let alone notability. A band so lacking in any point of interest it could only sustain the editing efforts of someone closely associated with the band.
WP:U5 "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, with the exception of plausible drafts"
WP:UPYES "advertising for your band will probably be too much"
As it's now in Draft it can sink or swim on its merits rather than the ambiguity of how it should be handled in userspace. Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Cabayi (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reasonable reasoning...now it's in draftspace, what'll happen in six months' time I wonder :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Berlin Philharmonic Ranking/Lead
Your recent edit is being discussed on the talk page. Please chime in if you have the inclination. Lexlex (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For you.
The Barnstar of Good Humour
Thanks for your Peter Sellers edit, and your edits to my talk page. They are quite funny! Good night! Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 19:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of Australian photojournalists
I am not here very often and I just saw the message about a deletion discussion on this list that I created. I see that you were the one who decided that it should not be deleted so I wanted to reach out to you and see if I can still voice my opinion in the discussion or is it too late? The page was not deleted, but I still thought it may be good to share my reasoning. Any advice you have would be appreciated. --RTotzke (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RTotzke: Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. That particular discussion (or rather, that form of discussion), now closed, would only be reopened by another deletion nimination, and I don't suppose that's what you want! ;) I'd be glad to hear your reasoning myself; but, the best page to place it—and yes, you should do so—is on the talk page of the article. Perhaps head it, "Thoughts on notability" or something; but that way, t will be there for anyone to see if ever there is another nomination. Incidentally, any more sources discussing Australian photojournalists as a group and refering to the individuals you list would be Billy's bonus. Hope this helps—have a good week, wheresoever ye may be! Take care, ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a quick reply. Basically, I focus on art, photography, architecture, etc. since that is my major. I was looking at List of architects and saw that just about every country had a list except for Chinese architects (which was a red link). So, I created a page for List of Chinese architects to complete the series. Once of my main interests at the moment is photojournalism so when I saw the List of photojournalists which did not specify individual nationalities (or really any good organization in my opinion), I decided to start creating the lists by countries. I didn't realize that someone would object to it. Sorry if caused any issues for editors and hopefully my editing will go smoother here on out. Thank you again for such a quick reply. --RTotzke (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see the edits made to the page by other editors. I will follow closer to this format going forward as it seems to be what other editors like to see. --RTotzke (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article Jean Creton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jean Creton 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a peer review for Burgess, and would greatly value any comment you care to make there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Anjneytubesindia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cahk: Remember to always check talk page histories—in this case, it had messages in it so won't (couldn't) be deleted. But I suggest asking (the blocking Anning perhaps) for talk page access to be revoked since they continue to spam it whilst blocked. Have a good weekend! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 09:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm lucky enough to count any experienced content creators amongst my talk-page watchers, they may wish to comment / moan at th3 above; all suggestions welcome—and considered. Except Iridescent who is by now sick to the back teeth of the guy :) I have spammed so many other blooming talk pages that I realised I had very rudely ignoted my own... ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note GeeTeeBee; If you email me, I'll send you the pdf (the wiki email doesn't allow attachments unfortunately), which is about 50 pages long. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article focus on the artist success and it's irrelevant to use it as reference; when the editor only bother to narrow their view into controversies. In wikipedia own words: Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided.
Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. MrEditor 13:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129 Remove controversies from the artist Personal Life, given the insufficient references and narrow use of information. MrEditor 14:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@MrCriticalOP: We'll come to that in a moment—exactly what you are asking for on Camila Cabello is increasingly unclear. Are you the same editor as User:Edpitor who has made a similar (and similarly unclear) edit-request half an hour before you did? And, why do you keep signing yourself as "MrEditor" when User:MrEditor is supposedly someone else? If you could clarify these points please, we can then discuss the edit-request you have made. Many thanks! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129, I thought we could use a different signature than our profile name. I'm not Edpitor by the way.
MrCriticalOP (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, you can delete it. You'll never understand. MrCriticalOP (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
External links, not See also
Back in Nov & Dec you cleaned up some additions by User:Genealogyinterest, moving their added ipms to a See Also section. While you were correct that it did not belong in the body, a See Also section is for other relevant Wikipedia pages, not links off-site. If you find yourself making similar corrections in the future please use 'External links' or 'Further reading' headings for links to off-site material. Agricolae (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the post on TonyBallioni's talk page. Would you be aware of any French or Anglo-Norman convents/nuns? - Conservatrix (talk)
Thank you for this Conservatrix. Well, we have categories on Category:French Roman Catholic abbesses and Category:French Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns which should show you what needs expanding, and might again lead to redlinks. Also, catagories on fr.wp might be of use; (fr:Catégorie:Abbesse, for instance is pretty well populated. Some of them are well known, of course, and naturally have articles (as with much of WP the low-hanging fruit has already been picked), but I see a few do not—e.g., Alice of Savoy (fr:Alice de Savoie) and Barbara von Trüllerey of Schänis Abbey. I hope that helps, but this is not particularly my speciality I'm afraid so you probably know more of what to look for than I. Take care! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nun come to mind offhand. EEng 10:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had a big list of them, but when I got to the bottom of the list I realized it was nun of the above. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know a lot about RfA, prbably more than most because I pioneered the biggest ever investigation into it and I've voted on literally 100s of them. One of the problems of being an admin, is that people jump on us for anything they can and just love taking our comments out of context. You said 'extremely unfair'... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: We'll talk about it more when you run for adminship, and based on your history, I might even nominate you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inbreeding in fish, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
@Doug Weller: Ooops! —I seem to have put my foot in a hornet's nest here. But that stuff in the hatnots were (apart from just plain le bizarre) completely political and unacceptable, surely? Although not half so unacceptable as calling editors genocidally inclined in their editing—I think that's a one-strike-and-you're-out kind of remark eh. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein deleted it as a recreation, 4 minutes later it was back. With yet another source not mentioning the subject. Doug Wellertalk 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now create protected at least...I wonder if it will reappear under some other exotic name. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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!
How do I find my Serial Number? Also I answered the question you were getting at on T:GMG, on my talk page, you might want to take a look, although I still aren't giving exact details. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this OP is a sockpuppet of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, it has been indef. blocked, as well as being global locked. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I never, I am actually half-way through sending an email to BU Rob13 saying "I think Prince of Thieves is a Dysklyver sock, can you quietly checkuser it and do the honours, ta" (or words to that effect). I've just binned it as superfluous. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, was silly of him... Lourdes 16:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie's first law of socks - Any account whose first edit is to their own user or user talk page is a sock.Oh look. I don't believe I have been proved wrong yet. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Yes, the check was deal by DoRD. I seemed this user before at User talk:Harshrathod50#RFA, when I patrolled the recent changes at Meta-Wiki site just now and I saw one of our global steward Linedwell has locked that account. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now will you rename yourself to "Serial Number 19912518" willingly or do we have to force you to? PS: Funny enough, my actual user ID has five digits and starts with 54... Regards SoWhy 20:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you convert 54129 to hex and turn it upside down, you get ILED. I wonder if there was an old ZX Spectrum game that, when it loaded, called RANDOMIZE USR 54129 to run? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't convert 54129 to hex and turn it upside down, you get (the anagram of) "b∀lƧS" if you read it in a mirror, liberally. Lourdes 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to add a caveat to your First Law, Ritchie333. Usually, editors who are part of WikiEd will make their first edit to their user page. Perhaps "Any account whose first edit is to their own user or user talk page is a sock or has the assistance of an experienced editor"? That's probably pretty accurate. ~ Rob13Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pulp Fiction cast section
The cast section for [[Pulp Ducktech89 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cast section for Pulp Fiction is missing two notable roles, Paul Calderón as Paul and Joseph Pilato as Dean Martin. Both are presented prominently in the end credits but are not represented in the cast section. Even though they are minor roles, I still believe they should have a mention. I hope we can reach an agreement on this issue.
Ducktech89 7:34, 23 March 2018 (WAST) Ducktech89 (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Serial Number 54129, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 clearly states that "this criterion applies neither to sandboxes or to pages in the user namespace": So why did you tag the page then? If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 12:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I can understand testing out CSDH, but why go the extra mile of adding an extra bit of text linking to SW's page? Primefac (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Yes, I've had to uninstall it; I guess it's because I installed SoWhy's customized version rather thean the raw one (or something like that). But it was bizarre: it added loads of other little bits which were unnecesary to me (rating pages for projects, for ex.), and more importantly, buggered about with both the page history and edit tabs so that they disappeared. On top of that, other pages randomly linked me to null. A temporary wtf moment :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when you import all my scripts, not just the bits you need. My configuration is for Monobook skin and won't work for other skins Regars SoWhy 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that's because he copied my configuration and that includes a link to my decline message at User:SoWhy/CSDH Template. Regards SoWhy 13:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would make sense. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Too late.
Howdy. Now that the Infobox civility case is closed. Editors can't comment on any of the closed cases' talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Guy, this is my favorite barnstar of them all, from one of the funniest editors to grace the halls of PorcinePedia.
The Fat Man is pleased to present his favourite taskmistress with this vile, pungent wheel of wriggling Casu marzu in recognition of her heel-nipping, whip-cracking, arm-twisting, irrefutable-offer-making illustriousness. The product of her beneficent tyranny is evidenced here and, like, a zillion other places. Please age this cheese in a cool, damp place (away from direct sunlight) until a suitable occasion arises for its reemergence. Enjoy responsibly. Your friend, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (And re-transmitted to Serial Number 54129 from SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted you to have it along with my apology (posted on Eric talk, since we have a long history of using and abusing each other's talk pages). The Fat Man wrote the April Fools blurb for the year Ima Hogg ran. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008 I hope you enjoy, even though I didn't re-write to tailor it to you ... t'would be a crime! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh rotten cheese :) it's like putting my feet on my talk page :D You diplomat you ;) Thank you very much, that's really appreciated—very kind! I saw your message on User:Eric Corbett's talk page, no problems there (deliberately pinging EC so as to send him a ~twentieth notification!). I liked the backhanded compliment, "you can write so you might not be an asshole" :D Hah! Sorry you don't pop to FAC at all, but I don't blame you, I saw you and Eagldyth discussing it, and frankly, if its wasting hours of your life to do something that's just meant to be fun—then f*ck it, it shouldn't be causing you grief. Happy Easter, and thanks for the cheesy note —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 18:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can write translates to you maybe you're not one of the insufferable children in here ;) Happy Easter to you, too! (I ruined the potatoes, but then, I Don't Do Food!) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JuanRiley
Even though you are right that I shouldn't relish on an editor's block and I agree with your deletion here, I felt I had to make sure JuanRiley didn't come back, he is blocked and for very good reasons. He had been burden for me and many other editors. (N0n3up (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
A-class review credit
G'day, Serial Number 54129, regarding the list on WP:MHCOORD, I gave you a credit for your review work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward the Elder, which is why your name appeared there. I'm sorry that your experience of the project has not been a positive one. If you do not wish to receive a barnstar for this, we will of course respect your wishes. Nevertheless, please accept my personal thanks for your involvement with that review. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! It seems I am not alone. A colleague of yours seems also to have observed similar terseness, wall-of-text bludgeoning and what appears to be a general aversion towards both nuance or the mildest of criticism. I appreciate this reply is somewhat belated—although I did thank you for your post four minutes after you made it :) —but this has only just been brought to my attention. In any case, thank you for the work you do there, our few interactions were always pleasanat and productive. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, it's probably not my place to say, but to be honest, I have had a very different (positive) experience with them, and I am hopeful that potentially some of what happened may have been a misunderstanding due to the impersonal nature of this medium for communication. But anyway, it is probably best to let bygones be bygones. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the AFC review posting from my talk page earlier. Looks like it's caused by AFC rather than Twinkle. I've raised the issue at WT:AFC#AFC & CSD - unplanned behaviour? in case you're interested. Thanks again, Cabayi (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you didn't bother following up to that link, it is a TW issue (or at the very least a GIGO issue). Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Ah! Thank you, interesting stuff; yes I'll look in and see what the Bods are up to. I wondered why CSDs in userspace automatically submits them as AfC drafts, when CSDs elsewhere don't. Or something like that. Anyway: thanks for the information, I'll follow it with interest. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 19:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism versus just disruptive editing
Hello. An edit such as this is blatantvandalism, not just disruptive editing, and should result in a user warning for vandalism, which even though the level-3 warning for vandalism first talks about "disruptive editing" then specifies that it is vandalism, while the level-3 warning for disruptive editing talks about content disputes and points the user to dispute resolution. And changing "Kingdom of Sweden" to "Islamic Emirate of Sweden", and calling it an "Islamic country" and not a "Scandinavian country", is definitely not a content dispute. Which I felt a need to point out to you since you reverted my addition of a uw-v3-warning on the user's talk page... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are comprehensively wrong; but you'l know that by now, having just read my note to you in which I pretty much answered everthing you just said before you even said it. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 14:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My first attempt to ping you failed because of me assuming that SerialNumber54129 without spaces, which is what your sig says, is your real username. An error I corrected in my next edit, less than a minute later, with new signature and all. So yes, I know how ping works, but thanks for telling me anyway... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Serial Number 54129. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Berture77 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wonder if you could undo the close so that an admin could close it? To begin with, there were three delete votes, as the nom counts as a "delete" vote. Separately, the sourcing was not strong. I would prefer if an admin closed this discussion, if possible. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman:—apologies for the (very!) belated reply, I left late on Friday. Re. the Hot Sexy close, indeed; in fact your nomination was the only policy-based argument presented, and so actually strengthens the my closing argument :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter Matthews (artist) 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 Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
H'mmm—thanks, Ceranthor; I have to confess, I don't hold out much hope for this one I'm afraid (by implication, I hope I'm not wasting everyone's time with the GAN). It's so far out of my comfort zone that i have no natural knowledge (or even any particular appreciation) of the subject, and I think that's generally fatal. Combined with the fact that I have no access to sources, I think it's a no-no, at least right now. And yes, I know your first point wil probably reference WP:LEADLENGTH :p I'll expand it tomorrow, UTC. Even so, thanks for looking at it, and I do hope it doesn't waste your time. Have a good weekend—Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 19:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like a niche topic, so I wouldn't be discouraged by the dearth of sources on him. Or do you mean that you haven't been able to access all the available sources on Matthews? ceranthor 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this works fine, but when the (currently) first reference gets archived, it'll just show at the bottom of the archive page. Your call! Primefac (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seeee what you mean; although it shouldn't get archived because it's merely referencing a side-splitting "joke" of my own (re. current article work). Although I don't think it deserves perpetuity, either, so ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see. Funny how I never actually checked the source of the reference link... in that case, you're probably spot-on! Primefac (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that user made a few edits to that article and another to a deleted article about a group that person belonged to; based on their edit summary the user represented that group. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Righto! It's been relaunched under a slightly different name, 331dot, just so you know why I ask. I assume they're reasonably different versions, as the last was a G12 of something, and, acc. Earwig, this isn't of anything. Thanks again! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously anyone is welcome to dispute the close at AN, which I think may be important for testing the application and scope of two new policies that are both in play here. Unfortunately I have to run without enough time to wait for a response. GMGtalk 15:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tempting opportunity to say you shouldn't be running anywhere at your age, GmG :p [FBDB] But I suppose: on the one hand I prefer not to re-open something I'm quasi-involved in, but on the other, someone who hasn't commented might not see the need to do so...uurgh —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I looked for about five minutes through both of your contribs just to see what you were talking about (and only came up with this gem), you make it difficult for an uninvolved admin to do anything. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Paston at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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!
I guess I won't be able to quit the wiki ever. How are the things around here anyways? Cheers, FriyManPer aspera ad astra 11:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doing pretty good. I am trying to find a single thing to focus on instead of trying everything. Any advice? I am thinking of anti-vandalism or some other work or some other administrative duty. Cheers, FriyManPer aspera ad astra 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature definitely went through some modification, didn't it? Cheers, FriyManPer aspera ad astra 17:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops?
Was this a perfect example of exactly what they want to prevent? Primefac (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a little too perfect... GMGtalk 14:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry. I wasn't testing it as such—it just occured to me that I was sure I do have alerts for Rollback—err, and by the time I looked, it was too late! D'OH. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*It turns out, of course I don't—but what I do have is some script or prefernce setting on which brings up a dialogue box for adding an edit summary to the rollback. So long since I actually read it that I couldn't remember waht it did! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my commons.js I have computer magic there that gives you the popup in case you want it. It's not all that useful on desktop though. GMGtalk 15:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I would like to request the name of Israel Lucas Gois, he has great relevance in the Brazilian market, I would like to make an article about him, could you help me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Oliveira sá (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, the big problem is that the name was blocked because vandalos made several attempts, could you unlock please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Oliveira sá (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm not finding any articles about Israel Lucas Gois (with or without the accents). Will try some fuzzy searching., but it appears on the title blacklist so something serious must have happened. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It hits an entry on the global title blacklist: .*israel.*luca.*gois.* <antispoof>, so previous attempts were probably not on enwiki. Appears to have been added by Vituzzu in February this year, due to long-term spam problems. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: This sounds more in your dept. than mine :) I saw Several people tried to make a page about the investor israel lucas gois, I would like to request the unlocking of the name of Israel Lucas Góishere...but I can't see where it's been previously created or deleted anywhere (I guess there's lots of spelling variants)... or, of course, by whom, if you get my drift... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's on the title blacklist, but a user sandbox version could be created and then the page moved to the draft space for review. Obviously if there's a global blacklist entry for this person it will need to come under a fair amount of scrutiny, so at the very least I'd want it to go through AFC. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and how can we solve this problem? , because the same has a very strong notoriety and great references in google--Lima Oliveira sá (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do this. Ian Rose closed the Fac. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. @Lingzhi: perhaps it will make it easier in the long run; anyone currently questioning the sources can have them presented to them oen masse on the talk page, and then when it goes back to FAC, all the big things will have been settled....is certainly how it should work anyway. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Primefac; I think you'll understand me when I say that the reason that is so understated is because it is—how can I put it—the polar opposite of what I was gonna say :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article on Buckton Castle. It passed FAC the other day, and the process and the feedback from everyone involved help make the article better. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind, Richard Nevell, although I doubt I was particularly useful to you...even so, give me a shout if you ever have more of that vintage up for candidature or review, I'll be happy to look in. On a lighter note, it's verging on the inspirational to see that a FA review can actually take less than err...less than three months 🐾 🆒 happy days! And thanks again for the message! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 09:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's very generous of you! It might take a while, but I do hope to have more for FAC in the future. It takes a team of reviewers, and everyone's effort is appreciated. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isima Odeh
Hi I noticed you made an edit on the Isima Odeh article and made one a second after you. I didn't know you were making an edit on the page and I had no intention of edit warring. Anyway I was adding citation to the portion of the article you marked as 'unsourced' and I'll like to go on. Aghachi7 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas about the broader modus-operandi as to the articles related with Meher Baba? Allmost, all the articles/parts are sourced exclusively from Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Meher Baba, Bhau Kalchuri.I am inclined to remove all frivolous mentions like this, from the articles which are in the template.And, what d'ya think of Seven Names of God Prayer? As a side-note, User:Sharnak had definitely got some vested interests with MeherBaba stuff....Also, twomore AfDs are up on roughly the same gounds. ~ Winged BladesGodric 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Present! No time to look at this right now (the grading is upon me, with a plague of essays) but I am always interested in wall-tearing. --bonadeacontributionstalk 13:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Bonadea, while I'm getting crushed by a looming (18:00 tonight!) diss. proposal :) Sooo glad to hear that the grass isn't greener! :p Best of luck with it all though—and no rush...the garden's been here long enough to wait a little longer. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 14:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, exciting! Welcome to the dark side - we have biscuits! --bonadeacontributionstalk 14:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
I'll be attempting unilateral culling(s) and AfD despatches on some of the easier ones but given the amount of established SPAs devoted to the topic, I guess, tearing the wall down is going to be a difficult task.And, in all seriousness, what kind of whacko does write a biography of every person whose sole claim to fame is limited to being mentioned in the afore-mentioned book as someone close to Meher Baba?! ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This stuff's getting interesting:) Dazedbythebell, the editor who appeared out of thin air to revert my redirection, is a self-declared sock of Sharnak, one of the most prolific contributors to the walled garden, per his own t/p admission.So, I guess we've to think about one less user....(You may choose to check this userpage and follow the leads for some interesting insights).....I also note that the connection between the two accounts is no-where mentioned on either's user-page or t/p, in a prominent manner and that Dazedbythebell is a self-declared follower of MeherBaba per user-categories and his overlap with Hoverfish is umm........
Anyways, I've dispatched numerous articles to AfD (check this list) and will concentrate a bit more on the creators:) And, ideas about the notability of Sufism Reoriented and God in a Pill? would be much appreciated.I'm feeling way too dis-inclined to run a search and all..... Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 06:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to call in a check user if you find anything suspicious connecting me to User:Dazedbytheebll (previously Sharnak). HoverfishTalk 10:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoverfish:Has anyone suggested such a thing? On edit: Yes, I see WBoG does rather imply it above. Ah well; either he will file an SPI or you will at ANI :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion
You placed a link here [5] but there is sth wrong with it. It does not appear as an separate section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination of articles for deletion is a rather complicated process, with several steps. I made my first nomination today, and after I read the steps that should be followed for manual nominations, I decided to use Twinkle. It makes the process much easier and quicker. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Well deserved, it is a very pleasing and enjoyable read. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering if you wouldn't mind...
taking a look at an article I worked on a while ago, am wondering what you think in general it might take to get it to GA status. I would like to get it to GA status but am kind of stumped as to what those possible improvements should be (lol am thinking its present state is just fine). Another editor thought the article wasn't long enough.... Anyway, the article is DeFord Bailey. Any help gratefully appreciated. Thanksevrso, Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shearonink, long time no see :) and thanks for dropping by! Very flattering, actually, since you do GA reviews and I don't! But you're right, that's a nice little article. As for size, I think it's OK (just!)—I asked a similar question once, and the minimum that's generally considered acceptable seems to be around 500 words. Although the important thing of course is not so much length as that it is substantial enough in its coverage to pass WP:WIAGA#3a. Which this clearly does. The only other thing I'd really suggest is that, depending how much work you want to put in to it, it could probably be—possible substantially—expanded. At the moment it uses a fair few sources, but I think there's plenty more that could be used. I'm not a topic expert at all, and I've only given the sources a cursory (glance AKA I could be talking out of my hat) but an item-specific search brings up lots of things in both news reports and the literature that are not used. Similarly, I note that he is the subject of at least one substantial monograph (the Morton biog, here, an academic text so a good / unimpeachable source) which I'd suggest is extremely underused in the article. Obviously, it shouldn't be given undue weight, but I'm sure there's plenty more that could be added, especially combined with bits and pieces from the other sources. It would certainly allay any fears a reviewer may have regarding length.Sorry to ramble—hope this is useful! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 11:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful. Thanks so much. Yeah I'm aware of the Morton biography, very much so...that's how I got permission for that photo - I corresponded with the author. I am somewhat fearful of using *too* much of the bio. I think maybe some of the facts surrounding Mr. Bailey's life - there are different stories about how he came to be on the radio in the first place, some of the jobs he had to take to make a living before he was on the radio and then after he was blackballed off the Opry, maybe some stories about when DeFord Bailey was such a huge star...stuff like that. I'll have to think about what to expand - it would be nice to have it as a GA...Thanks again - Shearonink (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: I think corresponding with real life authors is really great! (I didn't reaise that, sorry—do they like the article?) Yes, think you could definitely use more of it, particularly if that is then balanced with an equal amount from other sources. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 13:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even figure out where all that South Park stuff came from... first !voter immediately jumps to the largest OTHERSTUFF they could find? Primefac (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cartman = evil, Danny = all that is pure and good. Blah, blah, blah oo.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. I installed the script, and it told me I had reviewed the page; I thought "I shouldn't have done that"—so immediately unreviewed it. Why did you get that message then? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You all likely hit the button at similar times or it was discussing patrolling the revision instead of patrolling the page (a function we don't really use on en.wiki, but that the software has). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. I thought there's reason I shouldn't review that page, or something like that, that's why I ask. Thank you and Tony too. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No not all Ammarpad, please carry on—and thank you, in fact, for the reminder that I should also review more pages than I do! I'm just sorry you got that canned message like that. Take care! And thanks for messaging here, it's a reminder to pay a little more attention in future. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I don't have xfd closer so I had to do manual plus I'm using desktop mode to edit as per normal using my handphone so is really difficult for me to close such things. I am thankful my 7885 Octa still can support such a non mobile mode edit. Thanks for closing.Quek157 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't but as I used manual, the process is almost impossible using a phone. I don't install the script as I don't close Xfd on a regular basis. Quek157 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The No Spam Barnstar
This was thought-out way too brilliantly:) Who sez that the locus of WikiData can't be of any help?! ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologise for quite unintentionally leaving this article in a mess, which I did mean to tidy but forgot, and must thank you for starting to clean it up. Clifford Mill (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clifford Mill: No problem whatsoever. I must also apologise for the brusqueness of my edit-summary ;) still, you did do me a favour really, as by drawing my attention back to the article I was able to work it up a little more. It's now been described as "a good, tight, biography with strong FAC prospects," which is positive. Thanks are due to you for creating those circumstanecs—cheers! Take care, and many thanks for the message, appreciated. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your recent peacemaking initiative, this page still seems to be suffering rudeness and obtuseness. Clifford Mill (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you post a similar warning on the Talk page of Drmies who made the same number of edit-warring edits to that page as I did? Attack Ramon (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you're his friend or a hypocrite, or both. Glad we sorted it out, and I know how much weight to place on your 'warning'. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you post something to my page labeled "Warning" - ", threaten me with being blocked , but I shouldn't take it as a warning? Just admit you acted rashly and used double standards, we all make mistakes. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for goodness sake. You did make a mistake, you wikilinked "gay" in an incorrect context, were told it was wrong, and then you did it again. The "warning" was simply "please don't edit-war to include something incorrect". Now, let's all get back to doing something useful. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he can stop. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kal, given that I just closed the thread about potentially tbanning you from Cross-related matters, it might be worth it to step back for a bit, just so that I don't change my mind and re-open for further discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, I asked an honest question. I appreciate your explanation, but please don't stalk me and please don't threaten me. KalHolmann (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked that IP by the way. I wasn't kidding when I wrote the warning on Philip Cross's talk page. And Primefac wasn't threatening you; he was warning you. --NeilNtalk to me 17:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @KalHolmann: Per ((u|Primefac]]. Furthermore, do you really think that accusing someone of a) employing people to do hit jobs on the internet or b) having enemies on the afore-mentioned internet 9specifically, the world's fifth-most frequently visited site, etc.) does not infringe on our BLP guidelines? In case you're unaware, they apply not just to our biographical articles, but on commentay, talk page or passing, in general. Incidentally, apart from being a highly respected editor in these parts, Primefac is one of my most appreciated talk-page stalkers, and any time they deign to drop in and brighten this small dingy corner is a godsend; so I'd much rather you didn't tell them not to post here. Or anywhere, for that matter. There's little enough light that shines here as it is. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RE
@Primefac: I withdrawn the RFC. I apparently forgotten to remove this TB. I reverted others. Basically it is this AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_streets_in_Crawley_and_Nedlands. And if you have time do read this, if TL/DR, nevermind, I will concise if I have the time. Quek157 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Incubating here maybe better.[reply]
Hi all, per WP:DRAFTIFY, we have some clear guidelines for draftying drafts, 1(a) to 3(a), while we are now saying about the accuracy of us pushing drafts to mainspace and to survive an AFD. This AFD that I am now in is really the anti-thesis, wanting to draftily everything that cannot meet mainspace. The page was created in mainspace, due to the fact that it is a new editor, I didn't tag for CSD but AFD, and then the rest of the conversation continues. If you have interest visit this AFD. This is part of my NPP. While we are now pushing for notablity to be included in MFD, with such people trying to draftify anything back to AFC/draftspace and wanting even a proceedural close on the AFD. We are nowhere, on one hand, we are faced with new editors wanting their drafts to mainspace, on the other hand, we are facing editors who are equally new who created articles on mainspace then wanted to draftiy. On record, I had draftified up to now 2 WP:TOOSOON drafts back to AFC / draft space. However, many still think this is a given where clearly we have, by our discretion whether 1(a) to 3(a). I raised this issue is that so ironically above we are discussing about survival rate of drafts into mainspace (which is the central focus on legacypac pushing them to the mainspace then AFD it - which is now close) and now people are crying for why we don't draftify in an AFD. What shall be our approach to new users (who for most didn't but some did) who take the game of 1. I start an article in draftspace, and then it cannot go anywhere, then insist to get into mainspace, since at MFD we still can't (which I hope that AFC can do something) say about notablity, the draft keep on get resubmitted and kept. 2. Start an article on mainspace, then see that there is where we can apply A7 / AFD then realized how scary is the mainspace world and wanted to be moved back to draft. I think we have to, as far as we don't BITE, which I clearly don't do but rather (I tried even in NPP to improve articles to make sure those are able to meet mainspace like in AFC) the newcomers, we must have some sort of mechanism to really tell them gently what is acceptable and what is not. --Quek157 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Quek157: Thanks very much for the information—you didn't forget, I reverted you on this page, hope you don't mind, but I didn't know you'd withdrawn it and I have to keep things here otherwise I forget to answer them—which is very rude (actually, confession: even that doesn't always work, as I've just noticed a thing a bit further up which I still haven't replied to—D'oh!). Anyway, thaks for the explanatory note, much appreciated. Have a good weekend! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will like a proper RFC but let the qualifications part clear up first and let things settle, and an admin is also involved there without respect of due process, that's just wow me. --Quek157 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
persistent
in this AFD your persistent is linked to village pump persistent pernial problems you know. Do you mean this seriously? Quek157 (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well spotted. I must have meant SIGCOV of course; thanks for pointing it out though—I've rectified it, and hope it didn't confuse too many other people! :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
just wondering why isn't that case bio1e? Quek157 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some light for you!
Some light for you!
In order to increase the amount from "little enough" to "some". Cheers from your friendly neighbourhood linguist. bonadeacontributionstalk 15:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was just idly talk page stalking and reading your reply a few sections above :p --bonadeacontributionstalk 17:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Ctrl+f is my friend...thanks for the extra light, Bonadea, but surely, your presence here is more than mere light, casting the radiance of Cherubim and Seraphim—etc. Inspiration ran dry at that point :) Still—thanks very much! How goes the marking? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, that is very sweet. Marking proceeds apace, thank you - the end isn't quite in sight just yet, but I know it must be getting closer. I hope your application was/will be successful! :D --bonadeacontributionstalk 10:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Thanks for the barnstar, bro!--Muddyb (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the dogs name
The one in the photo where it's all disoted and too bright to see anything.💸Money💸emoji💸💴 16:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least you got the money emoji symbol right :D I_0urclc5 17:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood RfA
Hi 54129,
I didn't ask you to post a question, and if I had intended to ask one I would have done so myself, so could you please remove the misleading "on behalf of" from yours?
Thanks. – Joe (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't deigned to respond I've struck it myself. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Warning ?
Please refrain from posting irrelevant "warnings" on others users talk pages, the case has been reviewed by an admin (Number 57) who blocked Kleuske. If i had to be warned for edit-warring, Number 57 would have warned me. Also, since your behavior seems to be WP:NOTHERE, do not post on my talk page again. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikaviani, you're lucky you didn't get blocked, because I count four instances (1234) where you undid in what, 26 hours? The 24-hour rule is a guideline, not a hard deadline. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Listen guys, i do not know you and i have never interracted with any one among you before, so, just drop it, and everybody go back to his work, ok ? The case has been reviewed by an admin, and if, according to you, i made 4 revert in 26 hours, your friend Kleuske made 6 in two days and against two editors, right ? Also, Serialnumber accusing me of misrepresenting other editors but is unable to provide a single evidence for this and allows himself to "warn" me, this is a personal attack. Take care everybody. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikaviani, as you've banned Serial Number from your talk page...a rule I'm sure he's particularly depressed about...why do you think you have the right to continuously post here? CassiantoTalk 19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To answer to your question, i post here because Serialnumber did not ban me, that simple. Also, i'm very happy that he's not depressed because the last thing i want is to hurt anyone. And since Serial number seems to have many friends here on Wikipedia, this means probably that he is not WP:NOTHERE as i said above, therefore, Serial Number 54129 and all of you, you're welcome to my talk page if you have constructive edits to do there, not like an irrelevant warning. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be impertinent. Any fool knows that if you ban someone from your talk page you don't want to talk to them, yet here you are...talking to them. CassiantoTalk 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of education. To make it clear, i have some fighting skills allowing me to badly hurt anybody who would physically attack me, but i've never hurt someone (verbally or physically) only for some words. I said all of you are welcome to my talk page to make constructive edits, but of course, if it's for posting an irrelevant warning like he did, just refrain to do so, especially when an admin has already checked the case. Also, between you and me, i'm wondering who is impertinent here ... Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Between you and me"? It's a talk page, so clearly it's not, is it. With regards to the rest of your unintelligible babble, I'm afraid I haven't the energy to work it out. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that according to me, refusing to speak with someone who wants to have a constructive discussion with me would be hurting that person and therefore, i avoid having this kind of misconduct, that's all. I banned Serial number from my talk page because judging by his behavior, i thought he was WP:NOTHERE (i.e unconstructive behavior) but this was a mistake and therefore, i do not refuse speaking with him, end of story. I hope that if any of you and me interract in the future, it will be for constructive purposes. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait just a second here. How in the hell did this conversation end up with you talking about "fighting skills"? What was the point of that little foray? For two - I am pretty sure you've never read WP:NOTHERE - or if you have, you clearly don't understand it. SQLQuery me! 23:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insert *Well, That Escalated Quickly* template here* Thanks everyone for addressing this. Cassianto is quite correct (glad to see you arise, Lazarus-like! For good, hopefully)—I have no desire to spend any more time on Wikaviani's page than I have to; but, of course, if they think that their page ban—such as it is—will prevent the leaving of legitimate notices regarding sanctions and restrictions, then they are sorely mistaken: per WP:NOBAN: a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to.
The reason for the e/w notice originally was that, although the editor is clearly aware of 3RR, is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Their appreciation of that subtlety is less clear and warranted a reminder.
What do you think i meant by that SQL ? do you really think i was threatening anybody ??? if you think so, then block me (indef), because this would be a serious breach in Wiki rules (especially WP:NPA). I was just saying that i have never hurt anybody (verbally or physically) because of some words so that if my ban hurt Serialnumber, then i'm sorry and would be pleased to work with him or anybody else for constructive purposes. I hope this is clear for everybody. As to WP:NOTHERE, i think i understood it quite well, but of course, i'm only a new user here and i may be wrong. If you have anything else to tell me, then please use my TP, because i don't want to disturb Serialnumber with this WP:TLDR thread anymore. Thank you. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course you're going have escalation when you have nearly 200 page watchers... also, I think this is the first time I've seen parallel nested conversations at different indent points... nosy admin / likes to stalk 13:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd have reacted so much sooner if I had a computer of some kind to use. As it is, I have a phone that refuses to load the mass of indents here. Aside from joining the chorus of "here" voices, I'd just suggest that in the future, wikiviani, that you check a user's contributions first before suggesting a nothere motive. A minute on that page would be evidence enough. Hope you and yours are well SN. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Mr rnddude, all well here. I see, though, that you've rumbled my cunning plan to stop you reading anything on this page by only posting in the far-far-right handside ;) :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John/Eleanor Rykener 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Length of talk page
Your talk page is, at the time of writing, 327,460 bytes long. Please archive most of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? There are user talk pages like the honourable EEng at User talk:EEng, and SN54129 is being demanded to archive their talk page? In any case, nobody should be going around demanding people to archive their talk page. Have common sense and decency, please. As a petition, I will not archive my talk page until it is 400,000 bytes; folks needs to get better computer. Alex Shih (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Shih, I didn't realize that asking for someone to "please archive" their page was a demand. Would it be better if Andy had said "please consider archiving"? Also, I like how you take the victim-blaming approach of demanding that everyone just suck it up and get better hardware. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing, what has the length of this talk page got to do with you? If you don't answer, we shall just assume you're here trolling. CassiantoTalk 15:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Primefac, certainly. Under any circumstance I would read "Please archive most of it" as a demand. And if I am invoking the name of EEng and making a ridiculous claim in the same sentence, one would assume that humour was involved in the comment. Now may I ask you, why are you badgering me? Alex Shih (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why it's dangerous to use humour without obvious cues. You used humour, I used humour, and now you're upset. I'll take my badger back, though; she's lonely now. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And in typical fashion, within minutes of a semi-reasonable post being made on SN's talk page, it's exploded into nonsense. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First NOTHERE, now this. Sounds like my kind of life. Alex Shih (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proud to be the user whose name, when invoked, is automatically assumed to be a flag that something ridiculous is being said. EEng 16:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You jumped in too quickly and spoiled my chance to make a slightly off-color remark. In the current context the only thing I could say would be too off color. EEng 12:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Apologies for having the temerity to answer talk page messages! :D Never mind, just pretend I haven't answered; this page is definitely the place for off-colouration ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the cheap laugh EEng#s, Serial Number 54129's signature is living up to it's name . Serial Number 54129, we're still good. You are right, we have always generally gotten along well (though "Fortuna" was a better username in my opinion, mainly because I read it as "for tuna" and I love tuna ) and I do respect your oppose (please don't take that as agreement with it though). --TheSandDoctorTalk 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you still have a good sense of humour :D. Thank you and I will be sure to. Don't worry, I wouldn't do that (can't find that April fools uw-block one anymore anyways (don't worry, did believe that template inappropriate to an extent and would not use it) --TheSandDoctorTalk 18:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rykener
I left a couple of comments on the FAC before it was archived; don't know if my comments will be useful, but thought I'd let you know in case you missed it. Best of luck with the GAC! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Many thanks for the note! I have to apologose for not acknowledging those points. Pwerhaps I was a trifle miffed at the time, who know! As it happens I think I tried to accommodate your suggestion/s with this edit—satisfactory, do you think? But thanks for sticking with it, I appreciate the effort. Perhaps I could ping you when it gets back for a re-run? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do! I'm sure it'll pass at FAC sooner or later, but a topic like this is always going to be tricky; there's hardly a set way to approach articles about the topic, so there's going to be room for reviewers to disagree about your approach. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh- I left some comments after the ones you were responding to there. I'd seen that edit. Not a lot; don't worry about it! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Darnhall Abbey 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 Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Carabinieri, I'd forgotten this one: so far out of my comfort zone too. I quickly did some essential restructuring, etc/. and unfortunately wiped out you useful edits (I hadn't got an edit-conflict); however, I think I've managed to restore everything you did. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
…that I think you may find interesting. It comes at the subject matter from the literature side, but its essential argument is historicist, and it touches neatly on several points I believe are to your interest. Oh, and as an added exercise: spot the obvious redlink in that article. :) --Xover (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: Redlink received and understood :) Thanks very much for the article link—it seems to be just the kind of thing I'm looking for, and of course the references may provide further gems. Much appreciated, cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article Darnhall Abbey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Darnhall Abbey 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 Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Parliament of 1327 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Careful on the edits please
Hi Serial,
You've reverted[1] (for the second time) my own reversions of incorrectly justified edits, and done it insultingly with incorrect claims.
You accused me in your last edit of
a) writing the original content myself (I didn't as I had already pointed out in my response to your drive-by warning on my user talk page, and you could have seen in the history)
b) conducting original research (see above)
c) being disingenuous (insulting, and see above) and
d) commanding me to discuss in talk (after making the edit, and after ignoring my previous polite request to do just that)
Ensure all edits (especially ones likely to be challenged) are undertaken calmly, and with a clearly explained rationale.
Do not insult.
Check the history of edits before making claims about them.
Do not speedily-delete the edits of others and then drop warnings on their pages when they find themselves in the middle of an edit war you have started (even though I am sure you will have done so unintentionally).
Happy to discuss conduct further here, or (temporarily restored for that purpose) on my talk page. Conan The Librarian (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Conan The Librarian: Please actually read the policies you are attempting to cite. My edit-summaries were not uncivil, and template messages—which have been designed to explain a particular administrative consequence—by their nature cannot be so. Frankly, even if I told you that you do not know what you are talking about, I may be less civil, but far more accurate. Be advised that if you continue to insert your own original research or otherwise editorialise, administrative intervention may be requested.Further, I have not insulted you; my edit-summaries have been (overly, even_ comprehensive, and with all, backed by policy. Yours, on the other hand, have been poorly or unsourced almost every time. Your saying otherwise does not make it so, except in your eyes. Yet, if you have finally stopped edit-warring, then presumably the system works. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for any independent arbitration if it will help you understand how describing somebody as disingenuous for research they haven't undertaken breaches common and wikipedia civility standards. In other aspects I am sure there is much I can learn from you on editing. Conan The Librarian (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conan The Librarian, as someone who has never even visited that article before about thirty seconds ago (i.e. I'm "independent"), I can say that SN's edits were entirely and 100% acceptable (well, maybe 99%). There was absolutely nothing wrong with how they edited or what they said, and when you are reverted for a "big" edit it is your responsibility to start the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac: Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately - and I hope you will understand - I have to question your independence as you are clearly a frequent correspondent with Serial, so have a relationship which with the best will in the world may influence your judgement and willingness to criticise.
However, I'll assume good faith and accept your arbitration when you have explained how my criticisms above are inaccurate.
In particular, please address the following points:
1. How accusing somebody of being "extremely disingenuous" for conducting original research (for the nth time, the text I reverted was *not* mine!) is entirely and 100% (maybe 99%) acceptable wrt to any common or wikipedia civility standards. To reiterate - if the reversion of my edits had been done politely and with clear reasons I would not have challenged them.
2. I would not claim my editing history is perfect - I'm still learning - but I don't see how I am any more guilty of "edit-warring" than Serial, yet he/she is the one dropping warnings all over the place (including one made in minutes of the last contentious edit. coincidental?). That behaviour should also be factored in, it seems (to me) provocative and possibly emotional and could give clues as to the motivation behind the very rude accusation above.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter, I have appreciated some of the contributions both of you have made elsewhere and welcome the opportunity to learn from you. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, Conan The Librarian, from experience, that at the point one questions the integrity of an editor—and not just an editor, but an administrator—one should take one's complaint to a noticeboard, as that is an extremely serious allegation. It certainly is not one which can be made and then coyly annulled by deigning to assume good faith; that should have been your consideration from the beginning. If I have a good working relationship with Primefac—and them with me—it is because I (indeed, we both) obey the policies that the community has made standard and behave in a manner that the community considers collegiate. If I didn't: Primefac, I assure you, would be at the front of the queue to say otherwise. Since you state you are willing to learn, you would do far worse than starting with that. Suggesting otherwise is casting a clear aspersion—and is the only breach of WP:CIVIL made by anyone in this conversation yet.Let me put it another way: I suggest you either strike that comment and apologise or file at WP:ANI. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, I am still waiting (not optimistically) for a retraction and apology from you as per your breach on multiple fronts of "avoiding incivility"; given my patience and repeated attempts to be polite and conciliatory in this matter so far, I do not think your new tactic of redirecting the argument onto another participant is helpful (in my experience it is normally done when somebody believes their position is weak), and I will leave the (IMO) unwise option of invoking ANI to you if you feel that strongly about it.
Beyond that, I've made my points and will "walk away" as per the civility advice, this is becoming a pointless time sink for me.Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't completely useless. I have an open fire ... - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush you are an open fire. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, Drmies! I'm surprised it was closed so soon but I do realise that 24 hours is an accepted minimum and, as the closer has just said there, it had the makings of a pile-on, which isn't a particularly edifying spectacle. Even the single oppose wasn't really an oppose. A sad situation, though, and I derive no great satisfaction from it. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don’t do pile-ons. That’s good for no one. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John Fresshe bibliography
Hi, I noticed you removed the author links I added to the bibliography on John Fresshe with the comment "what is the point, when they're mostly red???" Obviously, it's a matter of taste and if you care that much, then do remove them. But the point is that all of those red links are to academics who would pass our notability test and including them aids article creation as outlined at WP:RED. (There was a good article written about this in the Wikipedia Post a few years ago but I can't find it now.) Indeed, I had planned to revisit the page and use those red-links to do just, as I am about to do with Paul Brand (historian). Anyway, I just thought I'd answer your question. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article English invasion of Scotland (1385) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the noise, the thanks that I've just sent you was an accident, I clicked on the wrong tab. Sorry, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expending some more thoughts on the issue, the language of the template seems to be very ill-chosen.I mean how can an article need cleanup to meet the notability guidelines? Even G11 doesn't say anything about notability.....
We are just trying to get our company a Wikipedia page as we are one of the larger cider producers in New England. This is the second time I’ve attempted to upload, I did not mean to make it bias. What can I do to get a page uploaded? Could you please help! CitizenCiderVT (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
; see Talk:Robert de Umfraville 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
. 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:John Minsterworth for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Gerda gave me a link to this page the other day and I noticed the "approved cabal for improvement" stamp of approval, so I... umm... borrowed it. You're welcome to use it or change it as you see fit. nagualdesign 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! Grutness...wha? 00:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done You have not said what eit you want making. Nothing to do. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Done —SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Regards SoWhy 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Regards SoWhy 20:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Paston at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Module:Carousel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#A_RFC:_should_we_indiscriminately_move_mainspace_to_drafts. Since you commented on that AFD, it cannot be seen as canvassing, but can see if you have time. Quek157 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48
(don't worry, did believe that template inappropriate to an extent and would not use it) --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)