User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Please try to be careful
This is not the first time you have posted immediately after me and caused issues. Thanks. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's called a
fuckingedit-conflict LC and no-one can predict thefuckingfuture.By the way, the presence or otherwise of "clouds" is established at the time of re-requesting, you should know this. ——SerialNumber54129 09:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)- I don't give an unredacted "fuck". Just stop fucking up my edits. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- The point, Leaky caldron, is that you do not know what you are talking about. Fucking talking about, even. I have explained the situation to you in simple language: if you don't understand, then it is clearly beyond your understanding. To illustrate the point...it's not the "End of", when you're on this talk page. Bye! ——SerialNumber54129 10:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't give an unredacted "fuck". Just stop fucking up my edits. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- H'mm; what are you saying? That in the midst of all the
fucking
, you'll get your hose out?! Help :o :D ——SerialNumber54129 10:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- H'mm; what are you saying? That in the midst of all the
Me too...
...[every single time. Like, yesterday. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: It is rather a fag, what? ;) Incidentally, I could've got you that; if you see I'm here, feel free to ask. I don't watch the RX as much as I probably should. ——SerialNumber54129 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Edits at User:Joseph2302
I noticed that my edit at this user's page, in which I indicated that the user was blocked from editing, was reverted with the reason listed as "please desist from further trolling."
Is this trolling? I truly don't understand. That user is indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia. What, if not that, is {{banned user}} for? My apologies if I did something wrong, but I genuinely don't know why or how my actions came off as "trolling."
Thank you. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nevermind, my apologies, I see what the mistake was. This user was blocked indefinitely from enwiki for disruptive editing, but it wasn't necessarily a siteban. I understand why you reverted, please just assume good faith rather than assuming I'm a malicious troll :) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @BrendonTheWizard: please see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Also note that I did not suggest you were a malicous troll. All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 19:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- (admin tpw comment) BrendonTheWizard, unless you've a very specific reason to do so then tagging the pages of banned or blocked editors when the blocking admin has declined to do so is a very bad idea, and liable to get you in trouble. There are often good reasons the page hasn't been tagged as such, which won't necessarily be obvious to you. At an absolute bare minimum, ask the blocking admin if they think you should tag the page before you do anything like this. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Office actions; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Anne drew (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Big boys' games, big boys' rules. Get you some experience, and then come back. ——SerialNumber54129 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring and lack of consensus-seeking at Wikipedia:Office actions. Anne drew (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Inexperience is no excuse for time wasting. ——SerialNumber54129 22:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Serial Number 54129, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| History |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 7
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (June 2019).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 7th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
- After an MfD, DannyS712's MMS was deleted. It was originally created by Abelmoschus Esculentus. If you import either of these scripts, you may want to uninstall them, as they no longer exist.
Having published 6 issues of this newsletter, I decided it was time to move it out from my user space. It is now located at Wikipedia:Scripts++. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
- Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising
- In the media: The disinformation age
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters
- Technology report: Actors and Bots
- Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?
- Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia
- From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal
- Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes
WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics
Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Attempting to hide a previous GA review is extremely inappropriate
Don't do this. [1] If you have any questions or comments about the review, feel free to reply to the review there or here and I'll try and answer. --erachima talk 12:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Erachima: Pretending to know how to conduct a GAR when you patently do not is equally inappropriate, and I request that you withdraw your so-called "quick fail", which—not meeting any of the WP:GAFAIL criteria as it did—was wholly misguided. Please leave reviewing, even of short articles such as that, to more experienced reviewers. ——SerialNumber54129 12:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I am not "hiding it", merely restoring the status quo ante—and if, by doing so, your incompetent review is removed from scrutiny, that is a lucky bonus for you. Frankly, your ramblings about powerpoint presentations—what the fuck? Still, your last fifty edits go back—err—five years so I wouldn't expect due dilligence. ——SerialNumber54129 13:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The very first justification for a quick failure is the page being a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria, and the first of those is that the article must be well-written. An article which needs its entire presentation reworked for readability, like this one does, is a canonical quick failure. Please try not to take it personally, it's naturally hard to assess how readable your own arrangement of ideas is to others. --erachima talk 13:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do not know what you are talking about erachima,
athough not surprising since you've never written a GA before, and, indeed, the closest you've ever got to decent material is fucking listsit's coherent fucking prose that counts, which it possesses in spades. Plug me into a fucking Sega. ——SerialNumber54129 13:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)- A good Wikipedia article is not just a collection of notecard-sized blurbs related to the subject, at least not since the great trivia section purges of 2006. It needs to be tied together and presented coherently to an outside reader. The Good Article process primarily exists to reward and encourage that refactoring process, which is the step where we turn articles from just being accretions of data over time into genuinely helpful introductions to their subjects. --erachima talk 13:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Something like this perhaps, erachima. Please desist from even attempting to patronise me.
Now go and write some featured material.——SerialNumber54129 14:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)- I'm glad to see you've calmed down. Now, you owe me an apology for the lengthy string of personal attacks. --erachima talk 14:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- This last edit would strongly suggest he does not; if it is not meant as an attempt to antagonize, it should be rewritten. Qwirkle (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see you've calmed down. Now, you owe me an apology for the lengthy string of personal attacks. --erachima talk 14:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Something like this perhaps, erachima. Please desist from even attempting to patronise me.
- A good Wikipedia article is not just a collection of notecard-sized blurbs related to the subject, at least not since the great trivia section purges of 2006. It needs to be tied together and presented coherently to an outside reader. The Good Article process primarily exists to reward and encourage that refactoring process, which is the step where we turn articles from just being accretions of data over time into genuinely helpful introductions to their subjects. --erachima talk 13:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do not know what you are talking about erachima,
- The very first justification for a quick failure is the page being a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria, and the first of those is that the article must be well-written. An article which needs its entire presentation reworked for readability, like this one does, is a canonical quick failure. Please try not to take it personally, it's naturally hard to assess how readable your own arrangement of ideas is to others. --erachima talk 13:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Comment. The Good Article fail criteria are straightforward, and this piece does not meet them by your own evaluation, erachima (talk · contribs). You state it needs reorganization before it can be considered well written, but in an article this compact that is an extremely straightforward matter which can be handled almost on the fly, not a major obstacle.
Your evaluation is also based, possibly, on a different perception of the target audience from the writer’s or submitter’s.Qwirkle (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
RfA
That unexisting page was already on my watchlist (although I don't remember when I added it).
—PaleoNeonate – 13:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- You know, Spartacus, a lot of us would like you to do a little more than just one admin action:)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- SN, I'm deleting the RfA. Regardless of anything else, it's not even possible. It would take 7 days for you to be promoted, and you're trying to prevent something that's supposed to happen today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: It may encourage Floquenbeam not to do anything drastic, knowing that there are grunts here to take the flak. May I ask you to hold off for a while. ——SerialNumber54129 13:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- What Bbb23 said. I marked it as withdrawn by crat and was going to add a note to that effect on the RfA, but it was deleted when I got around to saving. The (more?) appropriate action here is to convince a bureaucrat to +sysop you temporarily; however, I doubt you will be able to find a bureaucrat to do so. Maxim(talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, it's done. Waiting would only have made it more difficult to delete. Please don't add to what already is a drama-infested situation. Your little protest is a distraction from far more important issues. If you want to encourage Floq to change his mind, then talk to him, but we also now have Bishonen who's considering doing the same thing, except she doesn't know how to tell time.
--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, it's done. Waiting would only have made it more difficult to delete. Please don't add to what already is a drama-infested situation. Your little protest is a distraction from far more important issues. If you want to encourage Floq to change his mind, then talk to him, but we also now have Bishonen who's considering doing the same thing, except she doesn't know how to tell time.
- I was writing a support rationale when it was deleted. The text was: "Bruh, y'know I'm going to support your RfA. I'm hoping for more than a single action though." Mr rnddude (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate, Pawnkingthree, Mr rnddude, Cassianto, and Xover: Thanks for the vote of confidence all :) at some point, hopefully, the first round will be on me. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you know you have my vote as well. And my axe, probably. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers Bonadea; I both would be helpful. See diagram illustrating RfA ;) ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you know you have my vote as well. And my axe, probably. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't see it, but if it was an RfA, please run anyhow. The WMF has desysopped Floq for 30 days for disrespect, so we could use an additional good admin in the meantime—and after that. Do it, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Yngvadottir that's a very pleasant surprise; but I think
oppose per Iridescent
would probably be the rallying cry! On a more serious note, though, I think I'd feel—almost like a scab, you know? And knowing that other editors are willing to step in and fill the breach when they desysop-at-will is hardly likely to act as a deterrant to the WMF in these interesting times... thanks again for the positive note though, I appreciate it. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)- How do I come in to this? The last RfA I opposed was in October, and I was the second-to-last person to oppose so can hardly be accused of leading a stampede. ‑ Iridescent 14:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry Iridescent, it must be the cynic in me; or a premonition :) Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, now that Spartacus is in the house again, it does sound rather as if I was asking you to work against the movement. But please bear it in mind if we ever get back the encyclopedia we have all helped write. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- How do I come in to this? The last RfA I opposed was in October, and I was the second-to-last person to oppose so can hardly be accused of leading a stampede. ‑ Iridescent 14:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Yngvadottir that's a very pleasant surprise; but I think
RX overwrite
Hi, I'm sure this was an accident, but just to let you know, you overwrote my RX edit here. —Bruce1eetalk 11:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- H'mmm Bruce1ee; going by the time stamp, I 'd say that was an edit conflict. Still, ironically, we we saying exactly the same thing. Thaks for the pointer though. ——SerialNumber54129 11:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you please explain why you are reverting at User:Jimbo Wales. 155.178.180.12 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because you're not supposed to refactor other users' pages? See WP:NOBAN. Thanking ye. ——SerialNumber54129 11:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Jimmy's userpage is something of a special case, as he openly invites new editors to play around with it. However, in the case of this particular paragraph the wording was carefully chosen by him to address particular issues (that sources differ regarding his name and date of birth, which causes obvious issues when it comes to being the figurehead of a project based on only reflecting sources), and probably shouldn't be changed without good reason. ‑ Iridescent 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- But that page says. "You can edit this page. Really, you can! If you would like to, please feel free to do so. Make an edit – or even several! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about!". Jimbo allows people to refactor his page. My edit improved the page, you are giving no valid reason to revert. 155.178.180.12 (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Like the encyclopedia generally, you have a "right" to edit it. But there's no implicit assurance that the edit will remain. ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that it might not stand and accept that. What I don't understand is the reverts without any explanation. Then the only explanation when asked is that you shouldn't refactor others user pages even though this particular user page says to edit it. So the explanation from the reverter is contrary to what the user actually says. 155.178.180.12 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Illegal immigration to the United States
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gain consensus at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States before making such a change as you recently made. WP:WTW has not yet been determined to be applicable here via consensus, and your recent edit was actually a revert of an administrator. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bneu2013: I know. You're still quite new here, so that's why you keep mentioning that "an administrator says..." etc. Their toolkit is irrelevant here. Have you been advised on discretionary sanctions yet? In any case, I see you certainly have been warned about edit-warring; be mindful. ——SerialNumber54129 06:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- "New here, eh?" I've been editing for almost 15 years, and have had previous accounts, including Bmag32 (talk · contribs). I've been warned about edit warring in situations where the pot was calling the kettle black. The fact is that this administrator, who has yet to respond, restored the terminology to what consensus has at least agreed the title should be. If you think WP:WTW merits your change, discuss on the talk page. Your ad hominem attack here is poor judgement. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Uh-uh, Bneu2013 but unfortunately, pointing out that if you say things which smack of inexperience then you may be inexperienced is not a personal attack. Goodbye. ——SerialNumber54129 07:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- "New here, eh?" I've been editing for almost 15 years, and have had previous accounts, including Bmag32 (talk · contribs). I've been warned about edit warring in situations where the pot was calling the kettle black. The fact is that this administrator, who has yet to respond, restored the terminology to what consensus has at least agreed the title should be. If you think WP:WTW merits your change, discuss on the talk page. Your ad hominem attack here is poor judgement. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Racism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You removed my comment at User Talk:Ritchie333 as 'racism', but it's actually Scots language. It was posted jokingly in response to Ritchie333's posting of this, which is also (partially) in Scots (though I don't know whether he realised it or not). Adam9007 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- ^^^Quoth Iridescent, final para. for TPWs. ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate
That was not a duplicate on RFPP. For future references, duplicate reports usually merge automatically. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are trolling both those articles with your whitewashing of white supremacy. Please see WP:NONAZIS. ——SerialNumber54129 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- No I am here to stop trolls. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- When reliable sources call someone a "neo-Nazi", we call them that also. You removing all mentions of "neo-Nazi" is whitewashing. And this was not a "mistake". ——SerialNumber54129 15:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Coterel gang
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coterel gang 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Holy moly. That is a lot of article. Well done. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Oh, I see what you meant now—sorry, I missed this message earlier, so had no idea what the Robin Hood reference meant!@Jens Lallensack: No rush!—Cf. Talk:Marc Bloch/GA1, which has been ongoing since January :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Reporter working on story about Carol Howe story needs your help
hey there,
I'm Miles Bryan, a radio producer working on a project about Carol Howe. I've noticed there has been a lot of activity on her wiki recently. Writing to ask: why is it getting attention now? I've never used Wikipedia as an editor, so not sure if this is the right way to send a message, but if you send me an email I would be very grateful: pbryan1990@gmail.com Miloa35842 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Miloa35842: Thanks for the message, this is as good a medium as any, and Wikipedia—in theory anyway, less so its PR dept—prides itself on transparency. As for Carol Howe, I wouldn't actually say there's been that much activity on the page: apart from Wonderland ave, who started the page, only five other editors have ever touched it. And the creator's talk page is a litany of complaints about their (mis)use of sourcing.I can see why you came to me, as I last edited it, but if not for Wonderland ave, that would have been the article's only edit this year :)So, to answer your question, I don't think it's getting particular attention, but there may be something locally that I've missed. Incidentally, I'm in London, so can't be much help on the local front. How's the City of Brotherly Love? Man, gotta love Trading Places :) All the best me old china, best of luck with the research! ——SerialNumber54129 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@serialnumber54219 thanks for getting back! Wonderland Ave seems to have made almost all the edits. Is there anyway I can reach out to them? It seems like they deleted their acct? Miloa35842 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- (by talk reader) @Miloa35842: See Wonderland's talk page. You can leave a message there just as you've left messages here. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Miloa35842: Unfortunately the odds are long against you getting the reply you want (or, indeed, any reply at all)—they've only ever edited their own talk page once. And that was nine months ago. ——SerialNumber54129 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Drinks are on me!
|
That felt too easy... back to AfD? Usernameunique (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC) |
- Ha! @Usernameunique:, I was particularly disappointed that no-one rose to my bait! :p ;) ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm mildly suspicious that you're secretly trying to tank it. After all, you did go for the merge... --Usernameunique (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Only mildly?! :p Yeah that was a classic :) no, no tankings—well, not when you're already on five supports! ——SerialNumber54129 18:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Just noticed also, that when the chips were down, I had the helmet's back... ——SerialNumber54129 18:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- True that... or maybe you're an AfD triple agent? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Kremlinologically ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- True that... or maybe you're an AfD triple agent? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 10, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I might do that; or I might—was it you Iridescent—who recommended unplugging the computer for twenty-four hours ;) :D ——SerialNumber54129 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'd at least recommend unwatching it for the day, and then coming back the next day to fix whatever issues have crept in. Other people will revert any vandalism, and it's very easy to slip over the 3RR line on a TFA. As you're presumably aware, our insect overlords have now ruled that flagging problematic edits constitutes "harassment", and you don't want to be the next person they decide to aim their new toy at to "make an example". ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the article! You said: "This article was my first major attempt at a historical "biography", in so far as they are actually possible with this passing of time; it went through the MILHIST A-class review slightly over a year ago. It fell off the radar, but has recently received further polishing and should be ready for promotion. I've no idea, now, and looking back on it, exactly why I chose Buckingham to beef up back then; he's an interesting character but I can't remember recognising that! He began his life fighting for Henry V in France, and died defending Henry VI in England. Between those points he fought, argued, married, and heired, and went from being the voice of reason and conciliation in government to calling for war on opponents and urging death on his enemies." - Thanks also to Cassianto who pushed you enough to make this possible, and ti the others who helped. Sadly, the FAC was over before I found time. I would normally watch today, but will be mostly outside. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks Gerda, hope you had a nice time outside :) Yeah, old Humphrey was a funny one. The current effort might be of interest to you—before the English reformation, monasteries were occasionally suppressed for the same reasons as led ML to the gates of All Saints. This small priory was one such. Cassianto might be interested too, although perhaps for different reasons. The thing about being outside is, it's far too hot; rather thermidorian, in fact. ——SerialNumber54129 14:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- That one was already on my allegedly bloated watchlist ;) - The day outside was perfect, and now it's coolish with thunderstorms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Georg Katzer was one of the sadly many Recent deaths this year which prompted me to expand an article. I should have looked up who wrote that aricle and just left it as it was, unfit for a Main page presentation, but who cares? My mistake. I had a good discussion with that author who is an old friend of mine, and walked away. Please believe me - nobody else will anyway - that I have nothing to do with the IP who doesn't know how to behave. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- I trust that you will enjoy a certain irony ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Different topic but to lazy to open a new thread: do you think that Draft:Kurt Honolka is ready for mainspace? I don't want to request review per click, because then some bot makes it "my" article, but LouisAlain created it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks Gerda, hope you had a nice time outside :) Yeah, old Humphrey was a funny one. The current effort might be of interest to you—before the English reformation, monasteries were occasionally suppressed for the same reasons as led ML to the gates of All Saints. This small priory was one such. Cassianto might be interested too, although perhaps for different reasons. The thing about being outside is, it's far too hot; rather thermidorian, in fact. ——SerialNumber54129 14:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
July 2019
I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 12:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Resolution
Hello. The information you gave on your edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr. is inaccurate. Joe is not a living person, you say his goodness must be discussed by third parties, yet you cite that he was an Elder of the Presbyterian church, with no third party discussion....
That information all came from me. It is about him. My book is there to confirm that his wife says what is asserted in the article, that his third wife is/was a transsexual. That is noteworthy, and true, as I am that wife/widow, and I am transsexual.
Hathalm (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Hathalm: Thanks for this. Please join the discussion on the article's talk page to which I pinged you already ——SerialNumber54129 12:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
You're clearly watching Joe Ware's Wikipedia page closely.
There are many other things in the article that I have supplied in the psst that have no third party confirmation, yet are noteworthy, yet you continue to remove that I am transsexual, that he married me as transsexual.
Please share why.
My book is only there to show my statement. But why do you remove that I am transsexual?
Jenna Ware Hathalm (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Serial. You are instituting incorrect information on the Joe Ware article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr.
Per your request, I left off my book citation, though it is informative.
But you are also removing that I am transsexual, which is true and is noteworthy. I am the wife/widow, Jenna Ware, and I have a history of asserting this on Wikipedia and other places.
ALSO, There is other misinformation you're leaving on the page that I am correcting that you are undoing:
The sentence fragment of #2 sentence in Para 2 of the Retirement section. I fixed it twice, now. and The reference given for who co-founded the ware lab is wrong. It is not Joe Ware and his wife. It is Joe Ware, Jenna Ware, and Dr. Hayden Griffin of Virginia Tech.
so...
I left off my book citation you didn't like. I fixed the sentence fragment you made by chopping off the latter half of that sentence. I fixed the co-founding of the Ware Lab. and I added only that his wife is/was transsexual.
How do you feel about that?
Jenna Ware Wife/widow of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr. Transsexual, 1981 Hathalm (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Hathalm: The only reply you will receive here is pointing you to the discussion on the article talk page, which I have now linked for you twice. ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Serial Number 54129, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| History |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring. Since you had some involvement with the Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- That was a good thought you had about speedying it.
I forgot that since you are the person who did the move, you are listed as the author of the redirect so you can tag it. I have withdrawn the RfD nomination. I wasn't really happy about keeping it around for a week of discussion anyhow.Oops - I just reread the G7 criteria and this doesn't qualify. I'll reinstate the RfD. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)- I suppose it would be stretching credibility to describe it as an attack page or its deletion as housekeeping...I agree it should be gone sooner rather than later. I should have left it to a proper move, sorry about that. ——SerialNumber54129 15:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- BTW would you like me to give you the WP:Page mover right? It looks to me like you would qualify; what do you think? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- As for that redirect, Iridescent just nuked it.[3] -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Iridescent. As the song says, "IAR is in the Air" or something like that. If you don't mind, MelanieN, I'll take you up on the offer. I wouldn't be the most prolific mover, but times like today show the occasions on which there would be a genuine policy-based reason to use it. ——SerialNumber54129
- Or just take the plunge and request the full toolset. Provided you can cope with ≈20 people painstakingly telling you how evil you are for a week, in the current climate anyone reasonably competent will sail through RFA unless there's a skeleton in the closet or they've annoyed too many of the wrong people. (RexxS and Floquenbeam were both cases of exceptional circumstances.) The count of admins who are actually active today dropped below the 500 mark for the first time since we started keeping records and is below half what it was a decade ago when the project was a quarter of the size, and will drop further in four days when the next batch of inactivity desysops goes through; the cumulative impact desysoppings, resignations, and the general drop in activity of nominally-active admins in the wake of Framageddon are having on the backlogs is starting to bite, and even the usual serial opposers are starting to appreciate that they can no longer be too picky. ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are now a page mover. Yes, it does come in handy, particularly when moving things into or out of mainspace from draft or user space. As for the full toolset, I totally agree with Iridescent that you would be a good admin; as you know I and others have thought so for years. However I'm not so sure that this is a good time to run. I think the whole atmosphere is still kind of poisoned by Framgate. Two recent nominees sailed to victory, but they did have some opposes based entirely on people's feelings about Fram. And a current case, after a strong start, is dropping like a stone for reasons that aren't clear to me. I say just keep up the good work and keep your powder dry. The time will come. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- "After a strong start, is dropping like a stone" isn't actually true; what's happened is exactly what one would expect in a controversial RFA, in that the people who have the candidate watchlisted (who will in most cases be friends or supporters) pile in to support, for a couple of days the support level drops as people with a less favorable view of the candidate notice that it's happening and come in to oppose, and the level then stabilizes at what's likely to be it's final level over the final few days as those unfamiliar with the candidate assess them and make their own decision based on what they find. ‑ Iridescent 17:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, having that data all in a place....wow, that's amazing. The things I find around here... Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- BTW Iridescent, I just listed another of those lurid redirects at RfD. Not that I'm canvassing you or anything. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean Kidwelly satanic child rape cult, that one I wouldn't consider problematic enough to warrant invoking IAR; as you're presumably aware how and when it's appropriate to perform IAR actions is under particular scrutiny at the moment, and the existence of this one for a week isn't potentially going to actively cause issues as was the case with the other. ‑ Iridescent 18:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- "After a strong start, is dropping like a stone" isn't actually true; what's happened is exactly what one would expect in a controversial RFA, in that the people who have the candidate watchlisted (who will in most cases be friends or supporters) pile in to support, for a couple of days the support level drops as people with a less favorable view of the candidate notice that it's happening and come in to oppose, and the level then stabilizes at what's likely to be it's final level over the final few days as those unfamiliar with the candidate assess them and make their own decision based on what they find. ‑ Iridescent 17:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are now a page mover. Yes, it does come in handy, particularly when moving things into or out of mainspace from draft or user space. As for the full toolset, I totally agree with Iridescent that you would be a good admin; as you know I and others have thought so for years. However I'm not so sure that this is a good time to run. I think the whole atmosphere is still kind of poisoned by Framgate. Two recent nominees sailed to victory, but they did have some opposes based entirely on people's feelings about Fram. And a current case, after a strong start, is dropping like a stone for reasons that aren't clear to me. I say just keep up the good work and keep your powder dry. The time will come. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Or just take the plunge and request the full toolset. Provided you can cope with ≈20 people painstakingly telling you how evil you are for a week, in the current climate anyone reasonably competent will sail through RFA unless there's a skeleton in the closet or they've annoyed too many of the wrong people. (RexxS and Floquenbeam were both cases of exceptional circumstances.) The count of admins who are actually active today dropped below the 500 mark for the first time since we started keeping records and is below half what it was a decade ago when the project was a quarter of the size, and will drop further in four days when the next batch of inactivity desysops goes through; the cumulative impact desysoppings, resignations, and the general drop in activity of nominally-active admins in the wake of Framageddon are having on the backlogs is starting to bite, and even the usual serial opposers are starting to appreciate that they can no longer be too picky. ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Iridescent. As the song says, "IAR is in the Air" or something like that. If you don't mind, MelanieN, I'll take you up on the offer. I wouldn't be the most prolific mover, but times like today show the occasions on which there would be a genuine policy-based reason to use it. ——SerialNumber54129
- As for that redirect, Iridescent just nuked it.[3] -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- BTW would you like me to give you the WP:Page mover right? It looks to me like you would qualify; what do you think? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose it would be stretching credibility to describe it as an attack page or its deletion as housekeeping...I agree it should be gone sooner rather than later. I should have left it to a proper move, sorry about that. ——SerialNumber54129 15:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fwiw, the integer could have his choice of RfA nominators. But yes, you've been around long enough that you'll have the standard 20 or so people telling you in lucid and clear detail why you are the worst of humanity. Then there is always the person you've never interacted with who is gunning for RfA themselves one day who chooses to oppose you because they think that they can't be seen as supporting every RfA lest it hurt their chances (these ones are particularly infuriating for me to watch, but [insert shrug emoji here].) Anyway, I've been telling you for years to run and think that you should seriously consider it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- If anything, I think this is a good time for RfA. The Fram debacle began a month and a half ago, and the extreme emotionalism has died down, at least in part because ArbCom is examining the evidence in camera. Several of the administrators who resigned in protest have returned. My perception is that editors see more than ever the need for an effective and functioning team of administrators. I encourage you to put your name forward if you are ready. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. That means a lot coming from you sir. ——SerialNumber54129 18:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm ready! Should I put my name forward? EEng 18:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The circus is coming to town. Goodie! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, SN!!! Go for the full tool set. There are lots of editors who did not get involved in the politics of Framban, and are here simply to build an encyclopedia. You would be perfect!! Go for it, EEng!! Atsme Talk 📧 18:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- EEng, you'd at least get to a chit chat, imo, and possibly pass without one. I'd support, fwiw. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the person you've never interacted with who is gunning for RfA themselves one day who chooses to oppose you because they think that they can't be seen as supporting every RfA lest it hurt their chances
, they get evened out by their close cousins, "the person you've never interacted with who is gunning for RfA themselves who thinks that if they support you, all the other supporters will consider them like-minded and be more inclined to support". (Floq 2 is particularly infested with these.) It evens out. ‑ Iridescent 18:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer to avoid claiming that I possess mind-reading abilities. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 8
|
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (July 2019). Hello everyone and welcome to the 8th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
|
Hope everyone is having a good winter (or summer, for those in the northern hemisphere). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
- In the media: Politics starts getting rough
- Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
- Arbitration report: A month of reintegration
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?
- News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way
- Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect
- Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract
- Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things
Thanks
I appreciate your comment, but I have unwatched that article. Life's too short. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Serial Number, Hope all's well,
I just wanted to say a big thanks for helping yesterday,
Usually I don't react like that even if I do find the notifs annoying but yesterday was a day from hell and the edit conflicts with the editor every time I tried to do something really didn't help,
Anyway many thanks again for your help it was much appreciated :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 09:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, Davey2010 :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
My talk page
stop writing wrong accusations to my talk page, I havent attacked anyone. so pls stop that thanks -->Typ932 T·C 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Typ932: please desist from—in your words—bullshitting people here...or attempting to, anyway. Many thanks! ——SerialNumber54129 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- That bullshit was accident I read that badly tough it was that other persons writing , noticed it afterwards it was different person, thanks -->Typ932 T·C 19:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- I know wot you mean. But that's basically saying that it's OK to to swear at Davey2010 but not Bishonene ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- yes its wrong, but he started it by hes "crap" writings so it was like answer to his write style and yeas I know one should not answer fire with fire :) -->Typ932 T·C 19:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that is not a sensible way of talking to people. They don't like it, you don't like them not liking it, people get blocked. Either way, la vie pas rose, ugh. ——SerialNumber54129 20:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- And please bloody indent. ——SerialNumber54129 20:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Explain please
| DENY |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Your GA nomination of Coterel gang
The article Coterel gang you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Coterel gang 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Egypt?
I hate it when my Egypt's conflict :) Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- I blame it on the Sphinx. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
kidneys and grammar
"Those who actively supported and aided the Coterel gang in Derbyshire, said Maddicott, were of the same kidney[clarification needed] as those who, another time, was [sic] the audience of the Hood ballads." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Lingzhi2:...don't you like kidneys?! ;) ——SerialNumber54129 12:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just don't know if nonnative speakers would be able to make heads or tails (or kidneys) of that expression. I'm not completely certain that I even can, and I'm of the same kidneys as you. I think. BTW, there is an expression in Chinese, "You are a worm in my stomach." [肚子裡的蛔蟲]. Guess what it means [Hint: Believe it or not, it's not a negative thing to say.] :-) Example: "Yes Python. Yes White Horse Whiskey. You are a worm in my stomach." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Lingzhi2, I 've reworded it and removed the kidney. Jimfbleak previously advised the removal of my other one :) for much the same reason as you, as it goes, so thanks for confirming the wisdom of doing so...worm in your stomach being a good thing? Like, a habit you don't want to have to drop, for instance? Interesting you mention White Horse whiskey! ——SerialNumber54129 10:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Someone else mentioned WH whiskey above on this page. I had previously discovered it at a local Carrefour and thought it was OK, though of course a high quality Kentucky bourbon is preferable. "You're a worm in my belly", if you Google it, allegedly means "You're a mind reader", but I don't think that's exactly it. I think it implies that "you know me like the back of your hand". But I may be missing the full meaning, since I'm, you know, not actually Chinese. But Chinese is good for many interesting idioms. The equivalent of "apple polisher" or "brown noser" is "dog leg", for example. And so on. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oops! sorry Lingzhi2, I actually assumed you were Chinese! Apologies for the presumption. But I get the gist of the adage, someone who knows you so well they could be inside you. BTW, I was just about to comment on your
|alt=thread at WT:FAC (along the lines of "500 words, WTF?!") before you took it away again. ——SerialNumber54129 09:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oops! sorry Lingzhi2, I actually assumed you were Chinese! Apologies for the presumption. But I get the gist of the adage, someone who knows you so well they could be inside you. BTW, I was just about to comment on your
- Someone else mentioned WH whiskey above on this page. I had previously discovered it at a local Carrefour and thought it was OK, though of course a high quality Kentucky bourbon is preferable. "You're a worm in my belly", if you Google it, allegedly means "You're a mind reader", but I don't think that's exactly it. I think it implies that "you know me like the back of your hand". But I may be missing the full meaning, since I'm, you know, not actually Chinese. But Chinese is good for many interesting idioms. The equivalent of "apple polisher" or "brown noser" is "dog leg", for example. And so on. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Lingzhi2, I 've reworded it and removed the kidney. Jimfbleak previously advised the removal of my other one :) for much the same reason as you, as it goes, so thanks for confirming the wisdom of doing so...worm in your stomach being a good thing? Like, a habit you don't want to have to drop, for instance? Interesting you mention White Horse whiskey! ——SerialNumber54129 10:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just don't know if nonnative speakers would be able to make heads or tails (or kidneys) of that expression. I'm not completely certain that I even can, and I'm of the same kidneys as you. I think. BTW, there is an expression in Chinese, "You are a worm in my stomach." [肚子裡的蛔蟲]. Guess what it means [Hint: Believe it or not, it's not a negative thing to say.] :-) Example: "Yes Python. Yes White Horse Whiskey. You are a worm in my stomach." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
(←) Revising data. I made a mistake. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose and Nick-D: "so good, so good they sent it twice"...?! ——SerialNumber54129 09:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Liancourt Rocks. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
——SerialNumber54129 05:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
RFAR
Didn't you mean to say MJL generates more heat than light? Because you didn't intend to pay them a compliment, am I right? Bishonen | talk 13:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
Results
Can you give me any useful sports results with your advanced timezone? I might break the habit of a lifetime and place a bet. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind, but I'm blooming sober: what a waste of sobreity! :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The Santadog needs a caption.
I’d suggest “Why have you done this to me, Human?” Qwirkle (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwirkle: Yes, the number of times we must publically humiliate them! :) when the dogs take over, I'll be chief pooper scooper :D Apologies for the belated reply by the way! ——SerialNumber54129 13:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville
The article William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: That's very kind. I can't remember the last time I had a FAC and GAN review launch simultaneously :) halcyon days indeed! Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I am giving this a copy edit. I may well then assess it for GAN. Or not; I am suffering from some distractions in what passes for real life. As usual, feel free to revert or query any of my changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, sorry to hear about your real world distractions. Suggest a little light reading :) @Gog the Mild: it's nearly its first birthday too. ——SerialNumber54129 08:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I shall bake it a cake. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129
Thanks, Serial Number 54129 for resizing the Singapore MRT map picture for me. Thanks. BamZ412(Talk) 06:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Did I miss something?
I don't understand your comment on the case request page. Rather than clutter that page, I hope you do not mind if I respond here. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @28bytes: Well, he strictly wrote,
per the...statements given below
. Which i suspect is mainly referring to this remark—IIRC the first mention of sanctions against the filer (on that page anyway). ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)- OK. Yeah, I'm not thrilled with your call to sanction him either. But it looks like the committee is going to decline it and not sanction anybody, which is probably the right call. 28bytes (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just so. I deliberately added myself as a party on the very basis that I should not escape sanction if it was found to be a form of attack. Thanks, 28bytes, and keep up the good work. (Not sarcasm, although I know that 99% of the time it sounds like it must be) ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Yeah, I'm not thrilled with your call to sanction him either. But it looks like the committee is going to decline it and not sanction anybody, which is probably the right call. 28bytes (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
14th century stuff
A repeat of my thanks for that bumper surprise package. I am probably about 15% of the way through examining it, but of particular interest, and cause for appreciation of your generosity, was a chapter in Harari on Charny's exploits around Calais. My article on this was just wrapping up at ACR when your package arrived. The discovery of the Harari chapter has led to quite a bit of additional material being inserted; going to FAC without it could have been embarrassing. Once I have finished tidying up that article I will see what is next in the lucky dip.
I wish that I could reciprocate, but the only electronic sources I have that are not already in the public domain are things like a pair of articles on the treatment of PoWs by Andy King. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Thanks Serial Number 54129 for your support during my block incident. I appreciate it! starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |
- Sometimes the rigt thing has to be done, Starship.paint, if only by the wrong man. Happy to help! Take care, ——SerialNumber54129 13:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
Thanking you for your strong support during my recent unsuccessful RfA. It was much appreciated. The incident referred to in the answer to your question was one in which a Wikipedian commissioned an artist to paint a portrait of Jimbo with his penis. I came across it at DYK while building the prep areas. A hook cannot be promoted when it is at AfD, so I had to watch the AfD in order to close or promote the hook when the AfD was closed. The article survived, but without the image of the controversial artwork, although it's still on Commons because thats a separate project. The original was purchased by an ex-Arb, and later on-sold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hello Serial Number 54129, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| History |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Obligation to respond
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. In the Request to re-open the July 2019 RfC, you commented, "remind The Gnome of their obligations to respond to queries regarding a close they have made." (See diff.) It would be unproductive to conduct a conversation in two talk pages, so let me point out that there is one in my own talk page (here). You might perhaps want to follow it or participate in it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- A point that would be more persuasive, The Gnome, if you hadn't had to have my original comment pointed out to you, a discussion at which you failed to respond, which rather proves my point. Happy days. Communication is essential, be mindful. ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is simply no formal obligation by the closing editor to respond when being asked to reopen a closed RfC. So, I fail to see what "point" exactly has been proven here. I merely informed you, as a matter of courtesy, that there is a discussion going on elsewhere in which you might be interested. -The Gnome (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- ...ah, you simply do not understand your informal obligations to the project and your colleagues. Thanks for establishing that. ——SerialNumber54129 04:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is simply no formal obligation by the closing editor to respond when being asked to reopen a closed RfC. So, I fail to see what "point" exactly has been proven here. I merely informed you, as a matter of courtesy, that there is a discussion going on elsewhere in which you might be interested. -The Gnome (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Littlemore Priory scandals
Please stop reverting my edits of the copy edit requested at the Guild of Copy Editors. The fact it was reviewed for the FAC does not preclude it from being edited further. There were typos and punctuation issues and the edits I made I believe have made the article easier to read. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). --Hanberke (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Drat
justwhen it was getting good.-- Deepfriedokra 22:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Yo
Happy New Year and all that :-) Hope all is well! --bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks Bonadea, and to you! All goes as well as can be expected, considering the world's going to hell in a hand cart and we're only three days in :) ——SN54129 19:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 December 2019
- From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again
- News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages
- In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?
- Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki
- Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December
- Technology report: User scripts and more
- Gallery: Holiday wishes
- Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary
- From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report
Season's Greetings
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! |
|
Hello Serial Number 54129, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
December 2019
Hello, I'm Frotz. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, National Rifle Association, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is a thread at the talk page for discussing this. If you can point to objective proof that the NRA is conservative, liberal, or whatever, please post it there rather than posting unverified material. -- Frotz(talk) 06:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはSerial Number 54129たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
A Joyous Yuletide to you!
|
Happy holidays
Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy Holidays
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Serial Number 54129: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Happy holidays!
|
Hi SN! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
- ขอขอบคุณ, Kudpung, wil be thinking of you on boxing day eve...that's Turkey Pad Thai time :) hope you have a peaceful festival, however you celebrate. ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Be well at Christmas
|
Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear |
|
Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Sa,e to you, SilkTork, you're very kind. I hope you will accept my reciprocated regards. ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
|
Merry Christmas Serial Number 54129 |
|
Hi Serial Number 54129, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
- Nice one Davey2010, hope all's well at basecamp, and that they get what they want and you get peace and quiet! :) ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah all's fine here thanks and I hope all is good with you and yours, Unfortunately with my family it's guess work - No one sort of wants anything so I've had to guess .... pretty much a yearly tradition at this point lol,
- Hope you all have a lovely Crimbo & a Happy New Year. –Davey2010Talk 19:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)