Jump to content

User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Xiao Zhan

Hello, please take a look at this article Xiao Zhan. I find some of the content to be WP:PROMO and WP:FANCRUFT, but not sure if I am right. 160.120.31.230 (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles like that are absolute troll magnets, certainly! Thanks for the heads up. ——SN54129 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

AN-notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harshil want to talk? 10:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Better late than never :D ——SN54129 10:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
If only CORVID-19 affected electronic newsletters rather than human beings. ——SN54129 07:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Richard Roose being boiled alive.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Roose being boiled alive.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Franky Wah

Oh not you as well. For goodness sake, why have you taken the side of Thomas.W? He was just editwarring out of pure vengeance. Step 553 (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Step 553: No, not me as well. As I said in my edit summary, article creators can't remove speedy tags from their own articles: that's upheld really strongly here I'm afraid.
For what it's worth, I don't think the article is elegible for A7, as it makes a credible claim of significance (releasing a single on a notable label, for example). Having said that, you really shouldn't have bypassed the AfC process like that.
But it really depends on what admin sees the article first; some delete stuff willy-nilly, others (hi, SoWhy) understand and enforce the above-mentioned CCS requirement. Or any other experienced editor could decline the speedy. In any case, edit warring is another thing that's disapproved of: it's almost never appropriate and is regularly responded to with sanctions. Take care, ——Serial # 09:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay I see your point but I feel annoyed that you marched in straight on the side of Brownfingers while I myself had more to add to the article and I feel I never had the proper opportunity to oppose its deletion. Step 553 (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, it should've been deleted under WP:G5 then. ——Serial # 09:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating multiple accounts

As you did with User talk:Humbugz is yet another thing that is disapproved of. If you created it yourself with the intention of evading scrutiny, it's called WP:SOCKING, and if anyone else did it for you (a mate, say) that's WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Both are blockable. ——Serial # 09:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits to Deepak Rao Wiki Page

I think there is a vandal campaign going on that page. Here are some links from leading news sites that are not his interviews but references to his work by Richard Bustillo (Original student of Bruce Lee) and in general about him being given an honorary rank along with 2 others.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/others/Bruce-Lees-legacy-is-being-abused-Bustillo/articleshow/11325249.cms https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/ms-dhoni-begins-15-day-stint-with-territorial-army-in-kashmir/story-fhcnR4uYQoxeFhuQGjjqfL.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZr9PpPcnto https://www.timesnownews.com/sports/cricket/article/ms-dhoni-to-perform-patrolling-guard-duties-with-troops-during-army-training-in-kashmir/459162

I think this has to do with his BJJ credentials. The others who are editing the page seem to have come with the agenda of smearing. If self-promotion is not a Wiki philosophy so isn't single-minded maligning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modyyash (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Greenock Stowaways

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Greenock stowaways has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. A couple of things I noticed. In the Ill-treatment section it reads:

Kerr, hearing of this, declared that the boys would henceforth get "the ground of their stomachs before they get any more", (Sfn|Donald|1928|p=54) but the footnote says: Refn|”Specifically, Kerr swore, according to Roughead, that the first mate would "give the ground of their stomachs before they got any more".sfn|Roughead|2014|p=15}}|group=note

Of the two mentions – the one in the text cites Donald, one as a footnote cites Roughead. One says "get" one says "give". I'm not even sure what this quote means. The citations should be checked and corrected if necessary.

Also:

It's unclear how many boys had shoes. "the stowaways had no shoes between them" or "since some of the boys had no shoes" – is that "no" or "some" – needs clarifying

In the Arrivals section the quote box mentions some had, some didn’t have shoes.

Arrivals:

Mentions five stowaways were put off the ship, where are the other two?

Same section, then we have "Of the six boys, Reilly and Bryson were keen to leave…" Seven boarded in Greenock. This just needs clarification.

Best of luck with the GA review.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my post

It was 2 minutes sooner than yours :-) It is nice to know that great minds were on the same track. HeeHee. MarnetteD|Talk 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cheers MarnetteD, sorry about that  :) at least one of those minutes is testament to my steampowered PC! ——SerialNumber54129 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries SN. If your PC is a big as this it must take up a whole room in your home :-) MarnetteD|Talk 12:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Seeing your mention of White Horse whiskey prompts me to leave you this pic for your enjoyment. JW has a whole line of GoT whiskeys in honor of their last season. Glug Glug. MarnetteD|Talk 12:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Brilliant! New slogan: "Stupor is coming" :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Superb!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page

Please discuss your changes on the talk page of Waqar Zaka. There appears to be a question about some of the sources, which is of course a valid discussion to have. I have added 2 more sources and am seeking engagement on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've responded there. Your sourcing is/was poor enough, but the NPOV language—worse. ——SerialNumber54129 21:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any NPOV problems - the language that I used is in multiple reliable sources, and doesn't seem to be either praising or damning anything. It's just very plain factual language. Perhaps on the talk page you could explain what you find POV about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It has been explained to you, multiple times. ——SerialNumber54129 09:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah fun memories

Hello SN. The last bit of this post calls back to a memorable moment from Yes Minister. Jim Hacker writes "round objects" on a memo from Humphrey Appleby. Later in the episode Bernard Woolley tells Hacker that Appleby asked him "Who is this Round and what does he object to?" :-) My dusty old memory banks have forgotten which episode this happened in but it still is an all time funny - or is that punny - for me. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk

@MarnetteD: It was "Equal Opportunities"—rather apt considering current goings-on  :)
But yeah, that was exactly what I was alluding to, safe in the knowledge that not one in a 1000 here would have the faintest idea what I was talking about. Except—except—I forgot about your truly encyclopaedic knowledge of british TV. Absolutely effing incredible! ——SerialNumber54129 17:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Now you are making me blush! Great job on remembering the episode!! Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

PKK terrorists

Calling PKK terrorists as freedom fighters is extremely offensive. Readding the template is not justified.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: stop edit warring over another editor's user page. You are not the arbitor of acceptability on Wikipedia. ——SN54129 19:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, offensive material such as saying that you are a terrorist and calling the terror groups freedom fighters should be deleted.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
You've made your comment at the MfD, now stop edit-warring. ——SN54129

Review your changes at OpIndia

In one edit you removed my so much good faith edits, here is my version and compare with latest one. You removed following things:

  • Template of Indian English
  • Portal's HQ, country, languages and chief editor
  • Justification from the side of editor over accusation (WP:DUE)
  • Current ownership of company (and restored ownership at time of 2018)

Just a humble request to revisit your changes with calm mind and by assuming good faith. You will see what you have reverted. Regards,-- Harshil want to talk? 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have not been blocked yet. ——SN54129 08:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your wish...

The Closer's Barnstar

...came true (maybe). I can't remember where I saw the discussion but I remember you being part of it. I threw together a little animation you can add to a customized wikilove message for whoever you want to recognize as a closer. The animation is set to repeat 3x - anything more might drive people nuts. Atsme Talk 📧 04:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: That is, frankly, brilliant! Thanks very much! I think that discussion might have been here—in any case, that's gonna be my first use of the new barnstar. LOL yeah it might drive some people nuts...on the other hand I could watch it all day. H'mm, which might say more about me than anything else  :) Hope you are well! ——SN54129
:-) Atsme Talk 📧 12:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Special recognition example

The Closer's Barnstar
Your thoughtful and concise close at diff/ did not go unnoticed.

Please accept this token of appreciation for your excellent work.

<sig>

I'm going to add this to User:Atsme/Banners This was the only way I could see if it worked using Wikilove customized. X-) Hope you don't mind my using your page to do so. Atsme Talk 📧 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Yes indeed, it was the Peter Brook book....thanks. TheLongTone (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Serial_Number_54129.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Don't you mean, "My Lord, the Queen dost demand your urgent presence on pain of death"  ;) Many thanks for this though! ——SN54129 16:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't get me started on Blackadder quotes. Have you seen my alternative account?-- P-K3 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Good one! :D ——SN54129 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that didn't go to well for Kazemita1—this was in fact a retaliatory report for their edit-warring on People's Mujahedin of Iran ([1], which is almost the only place I've encountered them, so it's hard not to see how they found their diffs except by going through my old contributions. However, they forget, perhaps, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions)—and I see 78.26 has saved Kazemita1 from further embarassments and/or stains on their record. I expect Kazemita1 is somewhat glad that none of this got mentioned at ANI.
    However, I also suspect a subtext to your close, 78.26...and if so, it's been taken on board loud and clear. ——SN54129 17:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome to take it loud and clear if you want, but it wasn't really directed at you. I seriously doubt Ritchie received an education, and sensitive types really shouldn't be at ANI in the first place. Context, context, context. Now, if you had used said edit summary at Shining Time Station, I might have tossed a minnow your direction. Mostly I saw an opportunity to head off some utterly useless drama, as I've seen this topic of discussion unfold in the past. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear SN, if you were trying to say "Good fuck everyone" at [2], you made an unfortunate typo. Bishonen (unfortunately impervious to subtexts) | talk 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC).
The Bishonen, I reckon you eat subtexts for breakfast  :) ——SN54129 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm Hirolovesswords. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mike Kelly (gridiron football) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

For watchers: I have, of course, already left a message on their talk page, and this is retaliatory. For a flavour of Hirolovesswords's approach, it reads Edit-warring to shoehorn in a potential BLPVIO? Take it to talk, get a consensus of editors who agree with your assessment and there you have it. But as you must know better than me, BLPs always verge towards caution. But no, they appear to prefer to edit war their contentious material back in. Repeatedly. ——SN54129 20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well then!

Congrats, you're the latest entry to my "what do you mean you're not already an admin?" list. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Beaune Altarpiece

Hello SN, could you please elaborate on your close here? What is "Incendiary" about this? I have reverted until explained per WP:TALKCOND (premature closure concerns). I would have waited, but given your talk page header about little to no internet access for an indeterminate amount of time thought it best to revert to allow the discussion to run a more natural course in the meantime. --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well SN. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, MarnetteD, back at ya!  :) ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You're a guinea pig...

I promoted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/archive1 tonight, my very first FAC promotion. Hopefully I didn't break anything. If I did, let me know, please! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Speaking on behalf of my client, so far so good. It all looks fine. I am sure that he would want me to pass on his appreciation to you for your pressing of the button, flicking of the switch, and all of the other oh so necessary backgroundy things that you need to do. Of course, if by morning it has all fallen apart, legal proceedings will be initiated before you can say "I was only cleaning it and it went off." Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well, your client might discover that they'd mostly get a big-ass pile of books from me, since I seem to spend most of my disposable income on those. Of course, given that a number of them are medieval history books, maybe you both would like that... uh, oh. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Oh! Runs round room squeaking in excitement. Sadly I am increasingly coming to resemble a character from one of SN's articles. Maybe I should leave his talk page in peace. Or maybe not, he never seems to do anything useful on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Glad to be of use! I'm sure it all went perfectly, many thanks and "Welcome"; although that may be congratulating you on your choice of goblet  :) ——SN54129 12:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

An elevation

Woo hoo. Bill Bonville is finally elevated to his appropriate station. I wondered if he was going to die of old age first. It looked like a bit of a slog. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Cheers. Don't worry, I'm sure Pontvallain will go the same way :p ——SN54129 12:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Did you find an answer to this question? You didn't get a response but for that type of question WP:VPT might be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: thanks very much for that, I appreciate the advice and will do so. Season's greetings to you! ——SN54129

Benjamin Butterworth

Thanks for the revert and ponting that out, I hadn't looked far enough down the history - my bad! --2.99.1.51 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, .51, easy mistake to make! All the best, ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethos Capital

Hi. I had, indeed, consulted WP:NEWSORG before removing the tag. It seemed the main concern was accuracy which, in this case is the main justification for using the primary sources. There have been some vague allusions to double-dealing in secondary sources, which is why it is important to accurately specify those personal connections. How do you construe those as unreliable? I had also looked up WP:SPS which, in fact, says nothing about press releases. As to blog, I'm not sure to which ref you refer. The statement by the Internet Society CEO? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Six sources, three press releases, one blog = an article with only two WP:RS ∴ a question of notability. ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Might this be sufficient to confer notability? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore!

Feck! That was quick! Thank you and hope you have a great 2020! JennyOz (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

It's a good idea to not talk to people who've been on Wikipedia a lot longer than you have as though they're newbies. In particular, you seemed unaware of this when you posted to my talk page about the National Rifle Association wherein you ignored my warning against posting unverified information to Wikipedia without so much as discussing it beforehand. This is not edit-warring. It's called the way Wikipedia works. -- Frotz(talk) 17:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Frotz: Act like a noob, get treated like one, sorry. And you can attempt to redefine edit-warring all you like: reverting multiple editors in spite of a talk page discussion is not "how Wikipedia works". As a so-called experienced editor, please see WP:3RRNO. All the best. ——SN54129 22:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I notice that you haven't posted on this issue at Talk:National_Rifle_Association. Had you done so, you might have some validity to your retorts. Making statements like "Act like a noob, get treated like one" is not a good way to convince people that you're being civil. -- Frotz(talk) 05:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Lucky I wasn't uncivil eh  :) Apologies for the delay in replying Frotz. Tbh, I wasn't sure I really had to after observing Mathglot somewhat forensically lay out precisely where you had gone wrong...multiple times :D ——SN54129 21:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator Page

The problem has been fixed with sources and references, no need to tarnish my name Coloursred1 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem certainly has been fixed...for 31 hours, anyway. May I suggest a change in approach on your return? ——SN54129 14:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

derp

I might be blanking but I added two g4 tagshere because there are two discussions due to some sneaky efforts by a vanity spammer but I can't recall if there's a way (like g12) to add multiple discussion links in one g4 tag? Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: apologies, I didn't look closely enough at the discussions. You're right, of course; I can't think of a means of combing two discussions in one template either. A shame it doesn't like |xfd2=; I wonder if that could be added? ——SN54129 18:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
That would be extremely helpful (and so would the ability to do g5+g4 with the actual fields available.) I'll ping @Amorymeltzer:. :) Praxidicae (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, I haven't forgotten about G4/G5 fields when multiple! Been a busy 1/3/6 months, but I'm hoping to get it taken care of later this month/early February. As for the multiple xfd parameters, that'd obviously require a change to {{db-g4}} first, but I'm not sure how often that shows up. Maybe (as far as Twinkle goes) doing the custom for that situation (>1 discussion) would be easier. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

My comments at the AFD

here you removed my comments. I had already put them on the article's talk, page. Do NOT remove my comments. You know better. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I already know how you feel about the ARS based on the ARS mocking image you placed on the Levivich talk page. I am further discovering how you feel by your refactoring of the AfD. I went to refactor my own strike of the duplicate !vote by the nominator and saw that you did. Just now I saw that you erased the comments of another ARS member. Can we please let this AfD proceed without you refactoring the AfD? I have no gripe with you and I have seen your good work on other AfDs. I had no reason to believe that you thought negatively about the ARS until now. Anyway, here is hoping that we can let the lake AfD proceed and move on. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lightburst: both of your behaviors in that discussion are suboptimal. 7&6, you know better than to discuss anything other than the deletion review on an AfD page—and that definitely includes commentary on user behaviour. It is extraneous and belongs on te talk page. As does this discussion. And, Lightburst, you're hardly countering the argument that "ARS don't tag team to get their own way" by coming here four minutes after 13. And although you are correct that the nominator (or anyone else) does not get to !vote twice. Nut, per WP:REFACTOR, it always preserves the original author's meaning and intent—as I did, and as you did not. I'm afraid your argument here is as strong as that you "made" on Levivich's talk: that you even consider accusing me of refactoring you, when you had refactored someone else...I'm sure there's a Tom Stoppard in that somewhere.
Anyway, get ye both to the talk page if you want to have any more off-topic discussion. Or AN/I, of course—but that doesn't seem to have gone too well recently  :) all the best! ——SN54129 15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes I had an edit conflict with 7&6 here on your talk. When I saw what you erased the comments of 7&6 after what you did to my own strike of the duplicate.. (AfD is watch-listed) I came here. I think it is best to discuss rather than take unilateral action. I was asked to refactor my strike (on my talk page) however you decided to do it yourself. We all have our own beliefs and I have not ABF of you. Please do not ABF of me. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If you had done what you were supposed to do in the first place, you wouldn't have had to be "reminded on your talk": pointing out someone's errors is factual, not an assumption of any kind of fith. ——SN54129 16:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps consider spending less time on drama and more time building the encyclopedia. Your blunt/brutal comments are designed poorly. I suggest minding your own business - I no longer AGF of you. I would have left the entire comment stricken. The closer can get the flavor of the tendentious nominator through one of their 15 other comments. Lets steer clear of each other since we are both on WP for different reasons. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    I'm afraid your passive-aggression is what is "designed poorly" (whatever that means). You're lack the experience to understand the full nuance of "good faith", which you have not shown, I fancy, since that AfD began. And I include your discussion with Levivich, in which you demonstrate nothing but the purest, unalloyed WP:IDHT. And accusations of dramamongering sit poorly from somene who started the ANI thread in question. Not your finest hour, I admit.
    FYI, if you have the lack of foresight to accuse me of not building the encyclopedia, then you must expect me to see this and raise you this. Goodbye. ——SN54129 18:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    Referring to your 22% in the main space. I hope you work with instead of against, and stop outward aggression. Good work on the article creation. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the dangers of statistics; yes, something else that's a little more nuanced than at first it seems. You see, however hard one tries, it's difficult to inflate one's mainspace percentage point when so many were dumped into main space in a single edit, almost fully formed. Never mind, I'm sure ANI will have something to say about my mainspace edit count if it's ever an issue. ——SN54129 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC).
We will have to agree to disagree. The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization of the article (and what the article should be) are pertinent and fair game Don't touch my comments EVER. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Oooh, ALL caps eh? Well, we can continue this at your (oh-so-successful) the AN/I thread. ——SN54129 16:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Think again. I did not start that thread, and am not a participant. Your sarcasm becomes you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you 13, you're right, and I've struck that portion, apologies. Ironically if you had have already taken part, I would not have had to notify you of my mention of you. Swings and roundabouts... 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Happy New Year to you, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, 13, but since I've already commented on that thread multiple times, this is mildly unnecessary. But, Happy New Year to too, even if the world does seem to be going to hell in a handcart as we speak. ——SN54129 16:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
We are of one mind at least on that. Idiocracy turns into Wag the Dog. Australia burnt down. It makes me want to cry. PTSD, is not a 'delusion' but it is a very real 'disorder'. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
13, it's an absolute fucking tragedy, Australia, and as usual the animals suffer the most. But their has been heroism too; at least that's a reminder of how adversity can be confronted if not overcome. As for the other: yes, I agree with that. ——SN54129 18:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I've heard it's not true that Nero Fiddled while Rome burned. But Trump played golf and started (not yet, but it's coming) two wars to distract the American voter from the impeachment trial, while the world ... You know the rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Der Rosendorn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Der Rosendorn 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No edit wars

Please don't edit war on this lake article. I will walk away from it. I hope you will consider that we both share the same goals about the project. Maybe we have some competing philosophies on some issues, however we both want to improve this project. I am not trying to be condescending or to troll you. I stayed off Wikipedia a couple days to get perspective on these things. I will likely take another break rather than be to involved in these dramas. All my best Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's why you took a break? Nothing to do with your having been warned ~10' earlier to retract your personal attacks upon other editors? In any case, anything further to do with this lake, your opinions or the ARS generally should be made on the relevant project- or article-talk pages. Here, they'll be rolled back I'm afraid. ——SN54129 02:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

California New York Express Movers

Greetings! I saw you changed the CSD tag by User:Celestina007 to PROD. Thank you for that because I too believe CSD is inapplicable here. Can you please suggest any improvements so I can expand this article? Thank you again, --Zettiezac (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverted my contribution

Hello, I added a tag for deletion review to the deletion discussion of Toks Asher Young, can you kindly explain your reasons for that and is it in accordance with Wikipedia policy.Techwritar (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Techwritar: and I have reverted you again. The discussion is over. Do you not see it even says Please do not modify it....No further edits should be made to this page. As I said, you should either discuss it with the closing administator, or file your objection at WP:Deletion review. Please do not edit the old AfD page again. ——SN54129 18:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Techwritar: And I advise you that you have not followed my advice; viz go to WP:DRV and follow the instructions there. Which I have now fone for you. Your future activities should be on that page, not this one or the AfD. ——SN54129 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. Thanks for logging the SPI for Chandra Shekher Mishra yesterday. Much appreciated. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem Lugnuts. Username huh, what a imagination that guy had. ——SN54129 10:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass Reversions of all my Irish history contributions

The other day you reverted my contributions to the article "Irish nationalism" because of ongoing discussion. As I said I am fine with that (and, indeed, I am not looking to have them restored). But would you PLEASE PLEASE look at the discussion on the talk page for this article and tell me where I have gone so badly wrong. You said that I was dealing with experienced Wikipedians and that they would make we welcome. I won't characterise what has happened, but please judge for yourself. Telling me that he is unable to "see a single sentence of anything you have written that is suitable for an encyclopedia" FDW777 is now behind a move to "mass revert" my articles on "Unionism in Ireland" and "Society of United Irishmen" (which, at this point have been viewed, and in cases commented upon and corrected, by hundreds of readers and viewers). Anyone, of course, has a right to challenge, overwrite or revert any contribution I have made. No doubt my efforts have many faults, but I don't know how to engage with people who refuse to define their terms (FDW777 apparently believed it would be "pointless" to even try to explain to me what he understands by Irish nationalism as an encyclopedic subject). I have tried to solicit explanation but from FDW777 have only got more vituperative responses, and now this proposal to essentially cleanse me from the record--all, I fear, without actually having to make the case that the articles as I originally found them better serve the Wiki reader. (PS not sure how I was to contact, I tried the help page, which I understand was a mistake). RegardsManfredHugh (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edits to List of My Hero Academia characters

Discussion is taking place where it should: on the talk page.

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.


Quote from admin Drmies: "plot doesn't necessarily need secondary sourcing"

Also, My Hero Academia isn't a fanfiction, and thus doesn’t fit into WP:FANCRUFT. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies is correct. None of that was a plot. Please see MOS:PLOT for guidance. What that was, was a collection of factoids culled from various sources culled to form statements. That is the essence of WP:SYNTHESIS and should be avoided. Incidentally, why are you not thanking me? Much of what remains is not just poorly sourced, but totally unsourced: I left it in purely on grounds of maintaining comprehensiveness. Another editor, not so broadminded as me, may take a stricter view. ——SN54129 19:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for listening and leaving in the info. Sorry for not thanking you earlier; I was in a rush. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Why the hell did you remove it again? You said you would keep it in to retain comprehensiveness, and then went back on your word by removing it again, with your summary saying "no thanks". Is this out of spite because I forgot to thank you initially? Because I eventually did. Secondly, you say it's original research, but it isn't. Most of them are descriptions of the characters' abilities. Original research would be talking about each characters ships (which there were several actual ″vandalous edits regarding that). 99.203.40.43 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, I asked another admin, Xezbeth, if the current page was fine, and he said it was. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
One more thing. Explain why you removed the characters at the end. You explained why you removed the descriptions, but you never explained why you removed the characters at the bottom, who are major characters in the series. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

My edits on the 2011 Turkish Sports Corruption Scandal

Hi, hope your day is going well. I've tried to shorten the lead in and deleted the parts that was already in the article. I taught I was doing a service for the article. Would you kindly let me know how we can correct the lead in? Thanks in advance for your time. (Ashur (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC))

Ellesmere Colliery

Hi, did you see my ping re Ellesmere Colliery? Apologies if you did and I'm now pestering you, but it really needs your attention. All the best.TiB chat 19:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: Hope you're well! I'm afraid I never watchlisted that page. All the best! ——SN54129 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Tareq Salahi

Hello, Serial Number 54129,

I'm not sure how you interpreted a "Keep and think about merging" decision on a 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi as being a consensus right now to delete the article content and turn the page into a redirect. That is definitely a bold move but it should have been preceded by at least a proposal on the article talk page. Or start a new AfD which is probably warranted since consensus might have changed in the past 10 years. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Liz Please see here. But now Isuppose you will take responsibility for the trolling, the socking and the outright promotionalism that has wracked both that and its fellow traveller? No? Oh, shame. ——SN54129 11:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sean Bonney

I don't appreciate rude, shouty, dismissive edit summaries like this, especially when in the edit summary you're responding to I'm actually agreeing with you, albeit suggesting (with politeness I'll now abandon) that you be a bit less cack-handed about things. It's never okay to bite the newcomers, but deleting without discussion or any apparent consideration a month's work of work that's obviously intended as a tribute to someone who's recently died is especially obnoxious. Unfortunately I won't have the time to work on the article anytime soon, and won't hold my breath for you to add anything constructive to it, so I imagine it will stay as it is for some time. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: I'm sure if my edit summary had been rude, shouty, dismissive, then User:Drmies would have said something, to take a wild example  :) still, as long as our articles stay cruft-free, that's a service to the WP:READER we all can perform. Also, note policy: it may seem harsh, but there's no getting away from it.
Many thanks too, BOB. ——SN54129 12:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm--sorry, Arms & Hearts, but you did restore a bunch of cruft; I would have cut it too. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen that many crufty, spammy, and unworthy links. There were Facebook links for poetry readings in there? No, SN# was not being rude: please do note that their comment wasn't about you as a crufter or something like that, but about the cruft. That the onus would be on you to make a case for inclusion, that's really a given. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This could use another look, and maybe a lock, Drmies. The cruft was restored. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

hI sn54129, I'd like to join this discussion, which unfortunately seems to have become unnecessarily bad-tempered. I wonder if you could point out the specific elements of the edits that you don't believe fit Wikipedia's objectivity standards? The page as it stood before was extremely bare-bones, and as far as I can see, all the information added is verifiable material with sources. The page performs a useful function in gathering together information that is otherwise very scattered and disparate. I don't want to get stuck in a cycle of you deleting all the additional material and me restoring it, so some specificity would be very helpful. As it is, though the page has a reliability alert at the top, I can't see the specific areas you're concerned with. I'm interested in the page being accurate too, and would appreciate it if we could work together on this. As you can see, I and others are willing to put the work in, but some direction might help. Hope you're having a good day. Dmg37 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmg37: The place for this discussion is on the article talk page, not here. You have now restored a large amount of crap to a BLP which is mostly unsourced and extremely poorly sourced (blogs, etc). You have also restored a massive list of every single thing the guy appears to have written: this is unencyclopedic and advertorial, against which we have an important policy. The purpose of the project is not, I'm afraid, to perform...a useful function in gathering together information that is otherwise very scattered and disparate. We use summary style, and are not a a bibliography. Please revert yourself; be also advised the strategy of you repeatedly restoring it is considered edit-warring, and can be deleterious to a newly-minted Wikipedia account. Many thanks. ——SN54129 13:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Dmg37, a few things. First, just because you can verify something doesn't mean it warrants inclusion, especially not if it's sourced to primary works and to a blog, as in this edit. Worse, in this link you're not even pointing at a primary work, you're pointing at a website where you can buy the book. That's pure spam. In this huge edit you again link to a blog--you need to consider that this is an encyclopedia, and WP:RS is one of our most important guidelines. Worse (again there's something much worse), you re-add an enormous and unacceptable chunk of links. First of all the External links section falls foul of WP:EL to the point where it's just a bunch of spam, and combined with the rest of it it's enough for me to drop a spam warning on your talk page (just did). You included Facebook links to poetry readings--and I think there's nine more. You included some tweet for a reading. You included (and this is possibly the best of all of them) a paper uploaded to Academia from some dossier, not a peer-reviewed, properly published paper. I can go on, but it's a waste of my time. If you did this to promote your poet, you should be blocked for spamming, possibly for COI/paid editing. if you did it because you honestly think that somehow adding a million links is encyclopedic, then you should be blocked per WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Crawford family of the White Mountains

I've been reviewing what (mostly) I did at Crawford family of the White Mountains recently but can't spot any other sources that might be useful. I'm wondering whether to take it to WP:FA and what you might think about that. It's a long time since I bothered with the GA or FA processes and I probably have a stack of contenders. Not the best time for making trips to the library, of course, but everything at this article seems to be available online should there be any challenges. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion

My signature has been the same, though with different formatting almost since the day I joined.

Isn't it rather unusual in closing an AfD to make a comment like that? Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: it's absolutely idiosyncratic. Still, you won't need to worry about that when you defend your signature elsewhere. I imagine, since you were last active (c.2015), perhaps consensus has changed? Yes; yes it has. ——Serial # 22:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mass Reversions of all my Irish history contributions, PLEASE ADVISE

The other day you reverted my contributions to the article "Irish nationalism" because of ongoing discussion. As I said I am fine with that (and, indeed, I am not looking to have them restored). But would you PLEASE PLEASE look at the discussion on the talk page for this article and tell me where I have gone so badly wrong. You said that I was dealing with experienced Wikipedians and that they would make we welcome. I won't characterise what has happened, but please judge for yourself. Telling me that he is unable to "see a single sentence of anything you have written that is suitable for an encyclopedia" FDW777 is now behind a move to "mass revert" my articles on "Unionism in Ireland" and "Society of United Irishmen" (which, at this point have been viewed, and in cases commented upon and corrected, by hundreds of readers and viewers). Anyone, of course, has a right to challenge, overwrite or revert any contribution I have made. No doubt my efforts have many faults, but I don't know how to engage with people who refuse to define their terms (FDW777 apparently believed it would be "pointless" to even try to explain to me what he understands by Irish nationalism as an encyclopedic subject). I have tried to solicit explanation but from FDW777 have only got more vituperative responses, and now this proposal to essentially cleanse me from the record--all, I fear, without actually having to make the case that the articles as I originally found them better serve the Wiki reader. (PS not sure how I was to contact, I tried the help page, which I understand was a mistake). RegardsManfredHugh (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Daily Star

Hi Serial Number, I think that there's been a misunderstanding about the use of The Daily Star as a source on the Shuvro article. The paper that has been declared unreliable is Daily Star (United Kingdom). The paper that we've been using as a source on the Shuvro article is from The Daily Star (Bangladesh). They are completely unrelated papers that just happen to have the same name. Is it okay with you if I put the Bangladesh material back into the article? — Toughpigs (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah! :) ——Serial # 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany

I'm not sure why you decided against engaging with me on this nomination and instead decided to insult my competence. Nominators don't often do this kind, but it's probably one of the main reasons FAC is in decline and there is a shortage of reviewers. Whatever your reasons, I have every right to list further issues with the article in my section even if I have already opposed.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carabinieri: It's unfortunate that you chose to involve yourself in a candidate that has been, frankly, trolled from the beginning; and even more unfortunate that you clearly intend to undertake a war of attrition forcing your interpretion over that of multiple other editors. That's not a game I intend to play I'm afraid; so I'd suggest taking your money elsewhere. Thanks for looking in though, I'm sure you meant well. Cheers, ——Serial # 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea where you're getting all that. Just don't hat my section until I'm done.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean you'd rather I hat your contribution with no reply after you've wasted your time? ——Serial # 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If that's what you choose to do, sure.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

SPS and transport issues

Hi, since you're around, have I been too harsh at User talk:Motacilla#Lamport, which refers to Lamport and Holt? - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: Hope you're well in these times. Re, Lampton: just a glance and some mental arithmetic tells me no, you were spot on. Heaton, as you say, is clearly an SPS, and as we know, are largely not acceptable as sources. Except, of course, if the author is already acknowledged to be a previously published expert in their field. I can find no evidence that Paul M. Heaton is; in fact, it's not easy establishing his credentials at all.
The bottom line is that the version you removed had (approximately) 125 citations to Heaton out of <200 overall. That's nearly two-thirds. And you don't need me to tell you that's about as clearly UNDUE as it comes.
True, the article wasn't in great shape before that version: but it's not improved by adding dubious sources, is it...
All the best! ——Serial # 13:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I can understand the disappointment after all the work put in but, like I said, hopefully a lesson learned. (I'm as well as can be expected and even doing a bit of work. For a brief moment today I could have made good use of a PA!) - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping

Please ignore my ping (unless you wish to comment). This was sent in error in a sandbox draft. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing issue at Talk:Kiev

Hi, in response to this edit I'd like to know how to best address this issue that has arose in the linked RM, since I've little experience when it comes to Arbcom or with off-wiki canvassing attempts of this scope. In order to curtail any possible outing issues over the Twitter accounts' privacy (though they were public at that time and publicly gloating about their canvassing of the RM and even their wiki identities), and in case the original edit revisions at Talk:Kiev have to be redacted, the canvassing issue should probably be best addresed there. How can I send you the related material and what would be the best course of action to take here? Impru20talk 14:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll email you, and you can attach what you like by return, Impru20, if that suits? ——Serial # 14:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Seems fine. Do I have to post my email through here or...? Impru20talk 14:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh ok, wait, I have to set up an email address first. I did it just now. Impru20talk 14:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Impru20: Yes Sent ——Serial # 14:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Great. It'll take a while because there are many captures and I have to order them so that it doesn't look like a mess, but I'm on it already. ;) Impru20talk 15:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
You should have received the email with the info by now. Cheers! Impru20talk 16:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I've got it, gracias! I'll keep you abreast of developments, Impru20  :) ——Serial # 16:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
  • England Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, Denmark MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man taking Botswana on the High Road back to Glory!  :) ——Serial # 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
You know's it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul Scholes

Have you even read my edit on Paul Scholes? Please at least read before you delete just because of your prejudice towards meGoofdawg (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Is far too much detail for the lead section, which serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. I have no prejudice towards you, although could you explain why you thought it helpful to blank another user's page?
Anyway, Vinnie Jones would've had him for breakfast. ——Serial # 08:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It is no more detailed than Steven Gerrard's article. You clearly have some prejudice as you are reverting my edits for no apparent reason; my edits have been logical. Don't you think the most important aspects of a person should be described briefly in the opening paragraph rather than further down? In fact, it is actually far less detailed than many other footballers' article's, so your point is completely invalid. You are clearly just trying to abuse your power by threatening to ban me.Goofdawg (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't got any power to abuse. But I note you do not explain why you vandalised another user's page, and also that since then you copied their page to your own, fraudulently creating the impression that you'd written lots of quality articles when, in fact, all you seem to have done is get on people's cases. Instead of ballsing up the Schole's article, why not work on some newer, younger player who hasn't been written on yet. ——Serial # 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I 'vandalised' this user's page is because he numerously vandalised my edits without valid reasons such as 'you're not fooling anyone'. This to me seemed very inappropriate so I took action in the best way I could: doing the exact same to said user.Goofdawg (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No excuse. They weren't vandalising, just reverting your poor edit, as I also did. why are you still pretending to have written numerous featured articles? ——Serial # 09:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You have just proved that you are biased. My edit wasn't poor at all it was completely logical. The fact that you are saying it is poor shows you prefer subjective views to objective views. As a Wikipedia contributor this is unacceptable.Goofdawg (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Send me the article where it shows that what I have done is against Wikipedia policy and I will delete it.Goofdawg (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Please see WP:NPOV. Remaining unbiased is crucial when editing articles.Goofdawg (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Goofdawg: It's very sweet that you want to imitate my profile, but I think you need to focus on doing something constructive here before trying to pass others' accomplishments off as your own. Regarding the Scholes article, the content of one article does not dictate that of another. Just because things are a certain way in the Steven Gerrard article doesn't mean they have to be that way in the Scholes article, and the fact that two editors have disagreed with you about your changes to the Scholes article should be enough to tell you you're barking up the wrong tree. – PeeJay 10:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 16

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (May and June 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 16th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

If anyone else would like to contribute to future issues, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Scripts++. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For re-writing Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four from this state to this. It really made a world of difference. Thanks for all you do here! Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

fel wha?

Had to ask. never knew that one. Though the Santorum reference was less that promising. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: It's pretty specialist stuff isn't it. Thank crap we have an entire page devoted to it  :) I guess the best way of putting it is...
One of them is something I wouldn't introduce to my grandmother. The other's fel wha? (insert dancing banana emoji here!). :D ——Serial # 08:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC

First up, Harry is a good guy, and would listen. Second, as I know you are a Fall fan there is resonance here re wiki review processes: I spent time in an institution. Comes with the territory man. Ceoil (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

ps, hope you are the right side of this MES/Brix debate[3]. Or else there will be trouble. Ceoil (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, Ceoil, but.
The institution line, that's also from Deer Park/Fortress, knew I recognised it. I took a walk down West Eleven! and something about 5000 european punks?  :)
And what the fuck is that German thing? It's fantastic. The de-wp arbcom perhaps, "how can you be an arbiter of anything in that jumper". Brilliant. Funny enough, the uploader, BuyKurious must be the same as goes under that handle on the FOF. Talking of things Fall-related, why isn't PBL featured yet...?! ——Serial # 10:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds like you and I should collab at some stage; have more Fall books than you could shake a stick at, but would lean towards pre-1989. Interested? Re Deer Park/Fortress, in that live tape they go into Deer Park after..."Much discussion and I did not understand why?"...are we sure MES was not a former, pissed off FAC nominator?!! ps...ping Gerda Arendt, can you give us the gist of what the argument is about...I suspect trade union issues. Ceoil (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I should've been clearer too, I meant Perverted by Language, so with you firmly in Early Fall. Only a suggestion, they're all gold. re. that argument, I kind of imagined Monty Python doing the Red Army Faction! It is so bizarre. ——Serial #
The city hobgoblins! Sorry for being slow - Liz married me for looks, not brains <cough>. Raise you a notch This Nation's Saving Grace. Never bettered by any later human beings, imo. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, confused, which argument? ... see my talk, life and death, not trade unions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No probs, should have been clearer....the argument in this u-tube link.[4] Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we could do TNSG...paintwork gotta be one of the most fucking MELODIC tunes in modern music, but hey it's The Fall so I can't mention melody in my Southwark Street fucking offices.
    Thanks for looking in on the latest FAC Ceoil, but that has gone the way of all things. Fucking shame, really, if I say so myself. But some people just can't resist digging it out. How's tricks? ——Serial # 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have a few thoughts on the FAC and next steps, but will try calm down before I post here ;) ps yeah, "Paintwork" is certainly in my top 5. Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing other user's talk page comments

Information icon Reminder. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User_talk:Horse_Eye_Jack with this edit is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look and review the policy for editing others' comments before you remove another's contributions to this encyclopedia again.

If an editor wants to communicate concerns about something an editor has said or done on an article not related to their current block, they should be able to do so without being repeatedly reverted. My comment was even restored by user:Horse Eye Jack so your actions were completely pointless. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 02:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FormalDude, maybe provide a diff of what you're talking about, so the rest of us can follow along...? El_C 02:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
said diff Thanks for the reminder. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 02:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
FormalDude, this was unnecessary, again. As another admin, NinjaRobotPirate, has already pointed out to you: Please don't post templates threatening to block editors who are already blocked. This is incredibly pointless. El_C 02:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
El_C I already explained to NinjaRobotPirate why it is anything but pointless. Will you address my legitimate reasons for posting the original warning or just assume I acted in bad faith? —FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not assume you acted in bad faith, but it does appear to me as if you've acted in error. Piling on warnings on someone who is already blocked is not on. El_C 03:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Did you even read my reply? How does one warning, about a completely different topic than why they were blocked, constitute 'piling on'? —FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. There's being right and there's doing the right thing — they're not always the same. El_C 03:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
There's also doing the right thing, and, if you're not sure, doing the harder thing. While it may have been easier and more appeasable for everyone if I had not left a commment, it was ultimately the right thing to do. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with you and agree with NinjaRobotPirate. The timing was not right. El_C 03:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
So you're suggesting what exactly, in hindsight? It's nice that you disagree, but I don't see you (or anyone else for that matter) actually saying why you can't warn a termporarily blocked user of an unrelated matter. If Serial_Number_54129 was trying to provide constructive feedback, and not just spite me with a template warning about warning templates, they clearly forgot to say what I should have done instead. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You should have done nothing and let this go. The timing was not conducive for your warning template. Lesson learned, hopefully. El_C 04:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
We're talking in circles. My question was simple: what are the reasons that the timing was not conductive for my warning template? You still aren't saying why one should not warn a temporarily blocked user of an unrelated matter.
Doing nothing makes no sense to me, because it was a temporary block that was lifted the very next day. I would have just waited the 10 hours for them to be unblocked before posting my legitimate comment if I knew that the timing of it was going to catch me this much flak. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
FormalDude, two admins have advised you against doing so, but you prefer to belabour the point. And even template warn Serial Number 54129 about refactoring rather than just moving on. I don't think that's helpful. And, honestly, I'm becoming less interested in continuing this conversation. El_C 04:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just as uninterested as you, sir. I placed this message here with the main aim of finding out why my original warning was unhelpful (since I have not received a response to that on my own talk page). I also place this message here in order to further explain why I thought my original warning was helpful. I feel those intentions were clear so you can imagine my perplexation at not being able to get a simple answer. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Simple answer was given, if you can't see that, that's on you. I don't really have anything further to add at this time. El_C 04:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The only answer I've been told is the following circular argument: "You shouldn't place a warning template to a user who is already blocked because that is inappropriate."
If you said that my warning template was inappropriate because the user was already blocked and thus it would be redundant, that would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, why a warning shouldn't be placed on blocked users, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as not conductive/appropriate. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 05:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that El_C. Unfortunately, FormalDude doesn't seem able to accept that they can be wrong, or that there's a possibility that they are. Even more unfortunate is the less-than-happy ending usually encountered by an editor who is warned twice for the same thing yet never accepts it. ——Serial # 09:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I am happy to admit I'm wrong. I know in most cases it's not required that questions be answered from experienced users. I just thought it was a simple one worth asking. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 23:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC Nomination

Nice work on your FAC nomination. No obligation whatsoever, but if you feel so inclined and have the time, I'd welcome a review of my nomination, Hyborian War, here on the FAC page. It's a niche topic and getting closer to the end; I'm not a regular on the FAC page and don't know how many reviews an article needs. Again, not required—best wishes for your nomination either way. Airborne84 (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Per this edit announcing your exciting news that you no longer have intermittent Internet access. I can't think of a time when I have been more satisfied on English Wikipedia than with reading the news from that edit. Excellent! Dmehus (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
To add to the above, given my excitment from the above edit, I would be absolutely over the moon if the floating Clint Eastwood box could remain in a static position at either the top or the bottom of the page, so as not to obscure the rest of the talk page discussions. :P Dmehus (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter

Dear Serial Number 54129. Congratulations for the FA. Very nice article. I see I am not the only fan of sfn. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, same, also nice intro: "Forget the Rettendon murders, John FitZWalter was the original Essex Boy. Yes, the usual extortion, murders, jury nobbling and...er...sieges?! He makes the Krays look like over-enthusiastic tobacconists, although FitzWalter was admittedly lucky that his King, Edward III, lacked the later energetic and imaginative approach of Essex Police, at least for some time. But on a more serious note, yes, it's another in the series (well, the second) of Robin Hood types from the early fourteenth century, and, you know, forget "stealing from the rich to give to the poor", like most gangsters, they're not very nice people."! - Do you know about featured topics? ...cause we want to venture there for the Monteverdi operas, in memory of Brian. Mourning Anna Blume, and her name means flower, and was a poetic invention by Kurt Schwitters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Third commendation. Very readable and intriguing story. Nicely done. BusterD (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI clerking

Just wanted to thank you for lightening our admin load by closing obvious reports. Keep up the good work! El_C 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much El_C, appreciate the kind word. I thought it best to leave a talk page message for them too, as they're new and might be surprised at their report getting closed like that. All the best, ——Serial # 18:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You know how you're always telling other editors to run for RFA? :-) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
👍 Like. El_C 19:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
👍 Like. Also, the bathrobe cabal reminds me of everyday life in lockdown now. I'd love to support your RfA in my robe while swigging vino. GirthSummit (blether) 19:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Levivich should take note of the userbox up top :) ——Serial # 10:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

The Minute Man
Thank you for your assistance with getting The Minute Man to featured article status. I could not have done it without your help. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Jinn Edits

I already added my concerns to the Jinn talk page before my edits. The edits are biased and the page needs to be kept Nuetral. Critism on islam should not be on the jinn page but should be on Criticism_of_Islam. That page is dedicated for critism and those statements are welcome on that page.

--Tmason101 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

WO?

Regarding this edit, what is "WO"? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: This site, half of whose membership comprises sockmasters from here. Although I've heard that the other half are administrators from here  :) ——Serial # 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wikipediocracy, a wiki criticism site. Qwirkle (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Disambiguated. Dmehus (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Revolt of the Angels, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frontispiece and Prop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eric Easton

The article Eric Easton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eric Easton for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A tuppence for your thoughts

User_talk:Miraclepine#Unblock work sheet notes --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh.

Thanks for reverting my edit for the dumbest reason I've ever heard. — goethean 10:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Goethean believes that edit-summaries such as Removing Shaun King. Black Lives Matter specifically requests that people not donate to him because all of the money disappears ([5]) are not, somehow, a BLPVIO. The fact that they see it as a laughing matter is also troubling. Regardless of what the BLM want, if this individual is notable in the article body, then it's only right that he be in the infobox also.
    If there's an argument to remove him, then it should be made on the article talk page. But not at the bequest of the movement, or with dumbass edit-summaries. ——Serial # 10:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Defence of the righteous...

...or not as the case might be  :) Thanks for the clean up here, Praxidicae, LuK3 and Widr, I missed all the fun. Don't think I'll ever get used to seeing the old "You have ten new messages" though, scary stuff  :) I wonder how many permutations of 54129 there are...and how many valid alts that would be! Thanks again, ——Serial # 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

All in a day's work :) -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you change the sock notice, Special:Diff/962332704? You haven't made any case for it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH. Cabayi (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that you'd dropped the notice an hour earlier. Perhaps I'm dense (many would say so, I'm sure), but when I click on "This is a sock of X" I kinda expect to be taken to X's page (the sockmaster's), not Z's (another sock). So in this particular case, I'd wonder why—if User:Runforlimit505 is a puppet of User:BiH who is a puppet for User:Bamanh27—User:Runforlimit505 isn't therefore a puppet User:Bamanh27 directly.
Perhaps it's none of my business: all the best. ——Serial # 13:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
(Incidentally, Cabayi, if I've broken an SPI policy and/or other arcane process-wonkery, feel free to revert this like any other of my edits. It was purely a bold edit intended to simplify things for whoever next came across the page, rather than out of a deep commitment to the WP:READER, or anything...cheers! ——Serial # 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC))
Yeah, you should definitely do your time on the naughty step, and I'd take the moral high ground if I hadn't missed that tag on BiH's userpage, so let's call it even?
Yunshui tagged BiH's userpage on the basis of "off wiki evidence" but left both SPIs unaltered. I guess that's what the mop's for. *sigh* Cabayi (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for that; I don't think I even realised there was an SPI. Both accounts had been creating pages in response to jobs accepted by the same account on Upwork, so it's safe to assume that they are either the same person or the subcontractors hired by the Upwork freelancer. Yunshui 雲水 15:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I see I got a mention in despatches, Cabayi: "Mr Valentine has set the price" kind of thing. And thanks for your note, Yunshui: For once I seem to have avoided annoying any one! ——Serial # 15:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Serial, just wanted to drop by to say thank you for your reverts on my talk page. Appreciate your help. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@LuK3: No worries, and thanks for your work with that guy—that was too much rice for one! Hope you're well. ——Serial # 10:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eric Easton

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eric Easton 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 SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"Hey, I forgot all about that guy"  :) thanks, SchroCat, appreciated. How deep d you fancy digging? ——Serial # 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Don't Stop...

On 5 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Don't Stop..., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Oasis frontman Noel Gallagher discovered a song to release while under lockdown, which his brother called "not worth a wank"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Don't Stop.... You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Don't Stop...), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Honora Jenkins' will

Time to get this over please. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you following this mess?

It's a little disconcerting to think large blocks of text are being removed that way. Have you been watching the activity at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727? Was my case just a fluke? And then, after I reverted, came this. Atsme Talk 📧 19:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NPP triage

@Barkeep49: if you don't mind my asking, do we no longer mark blocked users' non-patrolled pages as reviewed anymore? ——Serial # 17:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I never mind NPP questions but I'm not sure I entirely understand the circumstance you're talking about here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I just started my annual page reviewing, and as usual started from the back. I was about ten or so in (see log, can't precisely recall) when I realised that a lot of them had already been tagged for various things, and had been done so as part of the page triage. Yet they hadn't been marked as patrolled; it occurred to me that in most cases (although perhaps coincidentally, of course) the creator was blocked. So naturally, I wondered if that was deliberate, and—more to the point!—that I shouldn't be marking those pages as patrolled as I have. Thoughts? ——Serial # 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. If it's from a banned user creating in violation of that ban (e.g. G5 elgiible) marking as reviewed might not be appropriate. Otherwise if the page meets standards (e.g. no COPYVIO or SPAM and is notable) mark it revewed. Thanks for taking some time to do reviews. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I assure you that G5 always in mind, Barkeep49, but thanks very much for popping over and advising. ——Serial # 17:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure. Should other questions come up please don't hesitate to send them my way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User Lugnuts

[6] I don't need to spend my time on this...well, quite.

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 might be able to help out here. Brief intro: I'm making good edits, like adding fine quality images to articles. That user is reverting those edits. I start a discussion (maybe that was just an honest mistake... that happens). Nop. Lugnuts keeps pushing for actions that go against WP guidelines. That goes around mainly this file, which has a duplicate in Commons. According to local policies, that file should be speedily deleted from en.wiki (criteria F8) and the image in Commons (that has substantially better quality) should be used instead. But my actions toward that are reverted. Ivo (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi SN. Ivo fails to mention this discussion on my talkpage, where I fully explained my edits, before they starting to make personal attacks against me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: To be honest, I don't get involved with image-related discussions because..because. But what caught my attention was not which of you had the right or wrong in that discussion (thanks for linking to it Lugnuts), but edits such as Do you have some problems with understanding ([7]) and you have provided me a very good reason...to feel...that you are insane ([8]) are wholly inappropriate, and are the personal attacks I was referring to.
Just one more thing, Kruusamägi: please sort out your signature. Per WP:SIG#CustomSig, A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username, (yours does not), and it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. Yours is, in fact, completely different. All the best, ——Serial # 12:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
As for clarification: I also pointed out where user Lugnuts is wrong way before those comments. He didn't listen and made reverts nevertheless. So those comments are justified, as this user had already started edit war and he/she was intentionally blocking edits that should be made (again, in reference to speedy deletion criteria). And those comments should be looked in context and not taken out it.
In addition: I constantly work with images and I'm also an OTRS agent. My action here complies with the general standard regarding images. That specific file should be deleted from en.wiki and the file in Commons should be used. Any reference to the template page is irrelevant. User Lugnuts has been blocking the actions that should be taken according to the general WP rules. Those actions have been taken repeatedly and even when the mistake has been pointed out several times. To me, those actions seem like bad faith activity and I have the full right to feel upset about that (or whatever I feel).
As for signature... to me, it seems it makes it easy to both identify a username and the real name. So far that has never be questioned in any WP (and I've been around for 14 years). But then again, I don't edit en.wiki that much and hardly ever participate in discussions in here. So en.wiki practices with signatures aren't something I know well. I'll consider changing it, but I'll keep it as it is right now just for the sake of consistency. Other way it would look like there are two separate users in the ongoing discussions. Ivo (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: You don't seem to be listening: I said I don't care, particularly, about the image. Let me clarify for you, one last time:
So those comments are justified. No. Questioning editors' mental health is never justified; if you do it again, you will likely be reported to the relevant noticeboard and possibly blocked from the English Wikipedia.
If you continue to edit war over the image, you will likely be reported to the relevant noticeboard and possibly blocked from the English Wikipedia.
Your reasoning regarding your signature is unconvincing, but it is the other aspects of your behavior here which are of greater concern. Now, you should be discussing the issues on the relevant file/article talk page not here. Cheers, ——Serial # 13:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
No! I was listening. This "And those comments should be looked in context and not taken out it." applies to both the specific parts of the text and the general situation. And I explained the situation I'm in as this is very relevant. Like it or not. In principle: I'm being harassed by user Lugnuts. Just looking at some specific words somewhere in the text doesn't do justice to anyone. If that is how en.wiki approaches those issues, then this system is very broken indeed.
In the Estonian Wikipedia we would never tolerate that kind of behavior. Never. No surprise 1/3 of editors there are females and we struggle to see on why is the gender stuff/general WP behavior/and such so often talked about internationally as from our side there seem to be no problem. No wonder the en.wiki is constantly being depicted as hostile. And forcing NPA that way only makes things worse.
Whatever. I'm not touching this stuff anymore (and I only reverted the file page once). The file in question will eventually get deleted anyway. I don't need to spend my time on this. Ivo (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Tu quoque. If you are really justifying your personal attacks and edit-warring on account of WP:BIAS, then your views are seriously out of step with community norms; and if you behaviour is, in fact, acceptable on et.wp—which I doubt—then you're probably better off devoting your energies to that project. All the best, ——Serial # 14:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

FloridaArmy Data Mining

Curious about how you did your data mining of FA. I'd be curious to look at that data set and in particular know if those 454 results were unique or included the same article multiple times. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if by "data mining", Barkeep49, I gave the impression of running Cambridge Analytica-style algorithms...simply raising the last 1,000 edits, and CtrlF for Notification: Your Articles for creation submission has been accepted/ declined (AFCH 0.9.1) respectively. They both bring up the original notifications rather than any subsequent edits to the same thread. There's probably a proper way of doing it, some sort of thing.* query run. Hope all is well! ——Serial # 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
*Lost my train of thought at that point, and can't remember what that "thing" is I'm thinking of...Now I can remember, now I can remember. ——Serial # 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

edit conflict?

[[9]]?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Must have been, although it didn't tell me. Many thanks, I've restored the "lost" material. All the best, ——Serial # 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
To be frank its such a mess its not a surprise.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Following up

Hi Serial — I wanted to follow up about my inquiry above. I really don't want to have to go to WP:AN to ask for a review of the reclose, since that would just waste even more of editors time, but I will have to do so if the current close remains in place. I tried to lay things out as cleanly/concisely as I could above, but you need to be the one to give it a proper close and put everything to rest so that we can undo the damage. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: apologies for the delay in getting back to you. To clarify, I only re-closed the original report to ensure that the bot would archive them together, rather than separately, as would otherwise (probably) have happened, hence my rather formulaic "Per JzG". I expressed no opinion in that thread, not do I express one now. I was stretching my nacability by editing a closed discussion (in complete breach of the instructions at the top of the page—if Bishonen had noticed, I'd be dead meat right now, for example), in order to make the point-of-order you requested which seemed fair enough.
But. It is bizarre to try and dictate the terms of the closing of a thread that has found against you, as surely that's what you were doing in this thread above? In any case, it would effectively re-write an admin close on an admin noticeboard, and I'd need my brains tested to do that. Honestly, if you want to re-litigate Guy's close (or mine for that matter), AN is as you suggest the place to be. All the best! ——Serial # 12:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Thank you for your reply here. I certainly understand where you're coming from, both with trying to clean up the ANI noticeboard by getting the thread to archive and with being hesitant to take some actions as a non-admin. The issue is that, even though you seem not to have intended it that way, Per JzG is unfortunately not a neutral close, but rather one that endorses the initial close, implying that further discussion bore it out, which I do not think anyone could reasonably argue. I was hoping that the thread would remain on ANI long enough for it to receive a fuller close (my message above was me trying to illustrate what such a close might address; I recognize it's not up to me to dictate the terms), but I understand why you acted as you did, and I agree that WP:AN may be the best place to go at this point. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Stalkers needed for James Brock, the Monson Motor Lodge swim-in and civil rights in St Augustine, June–July 1964

If I happen to have any literate stalkers, from the ole' colonies, doncha know!  ;) who can turn my middle[ing] English into good old new-fashioned AmEng in the above article (I've caught the obvious: favor, etc, one-l'ing), would be appreciated. It's a sensitive subject...indeed, more broadly, it's become a lot more fucking sensitive since I started the thing, sadly. Hope everyone's well. ——Serial # 19:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Should probably use the month-day-year date format, right? I didn't want to go through and change it all without checking with you though!-- P-K3 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@P-K3, it's a US topic, so yes it should, I suppose. That was one of the things that never even occurred to me! ——Serial # 08:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It did leap out at me as one of the things I’ve had to train myself to do since moving over here:) I’ll get to it today. P-K3 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: Ah, your redcoat's turned blue?  ;) ——Serial # 12:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, although through gritted teeth in this particular case...-- P-K3 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Don't Stop...

Hello! Your submission of Don't Stop... 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) 00:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding AFD

Hi Serial Number 54129, I have requested an article for deletion. Can you please conclude this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Hundred and Eight Shiva Thandavam, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

FAC for Hyborian War

Hi SN54129. I'll be nominating the article Hyborian War for Featured Article again in about a week after its ongoing peer review (improvements complete). Since you commented on it during its first nomination, would be willing to give it a review when it posts again? Not asking for a free pass—just a fair review as per the criteria. I'm a bit concerned that it might sit without reviews given that it's a niche topic. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Serial Number 54129, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, thanks that you fixed the situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject where some users had added usernames in wrong format. But what was wrong in ur-3, besides my name. Didn't it mean, Urdu language of advanced level. Please clarify. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject

I'm sure it was unintentional but your edit here [10] removed my entry which as far as I know was correctly placed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There were probably a million edit-conflicts with that thing. All the best! ——Serial # 17:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

DS alert

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

SarahSV (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean....

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in Asia (2nd nomination), to my way of thinking your argument would indicate you think the article should be kept, but you have "delete" in bold. Now, I wouldn't want to suggest an error, but my teeny-tiny brain is easily confused. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks, 78.26. I did mean keep, and have rectified. That'll get used against me to indicate an inherently deletionist streak in the future I expect :) ——Serial # 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
must be from all the spinning creffett (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention all those revolutions!  ;) ——Serial # 14:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You have no idea, given the shelter-in-place order... I may be running out of new material for the first time in 15 years. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Userpage

Why did you edit my userpage!? Logo fixer (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just missed being corrected

Howdy, had 'fixed' your small text at ANI, but before I could implement it, you deleted you entire 'small text' post :) GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me, GoodDay; yeah, it hadn't (so I thought!) been replied to, so quietly removed it as by then moot. Hope you're well! ——Serial # 15:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Cool. BTW - Had to read your post in 'edit form', as the Eastwood photo keeps blocking half the post. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yo

I left a follow-up set of questions for you on the User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. You can just reply back to my talk page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: I'm trying to dig out an old copy of Steam World which, IIRC, carried a detailed article on it. Give us a day or two, if you could? (Also note, it's Wheler Street, apoogies for the typo back there! ——Serial # 17:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Just checking back. Yes, I'd like to do a rewrite Bishopsgate (Low Level) railway station, but would like to know 1. which set of platforms were built first and 2. where each of the platforms were, exactly, in relation to the surrounding streets. The one diagram I've found looks a bit unclear, but it looks like two side platforms and an island platform. From the diagram I posted, it looks like there up and down mains were on the south side of the cut, and the up and down locals were on the north side of the cut. Interestingly, it looks like for the platforms on the main that they did not align with the up being entirely east of Wheeler and the down existing west of Wheeler. Anyway, let me know locations and dates and such, that is unless you wanted to rewrite the page with the update info. --Criticalthinker (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Should we notify Iridescent about my edit restrictions review? Aasim 11:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: I'm sure Iridescent has already seen it; if they chose not to comment, that's probably a sign of approval  :) although a note on their talk would be polite. All the best, ——Serial # 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, no prob :) Maybe I'll just let the discussion play out. Aasim 11:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

TFA (June 2020)

This is to let you know that the John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 23, 2020. 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/June 23, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303

On 22 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. P-K3 (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serial_Number_54129/Archive_23&oldid=1073320165"