This is an archive of past discussions with User:Serial Number 54129. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for your feedback on the Dokkyo University article.
I'm still trying to find my way around Wiki, as I'm comparably new. I clearly understand, that some of the information, that I added was a bit too expansive (although I personally would like to find these things on any given Wiki-page); I will continue to read into the college and university-articles page.
What I don't understand is why you simply removed everything.
That doesn't seem to be the correct response to me.
I've started trying to improve the article a few weeks ago, after I stumbled upon it, coming from a German university page. Some of the things you've removed had been there before and clearly seem to be relevant (to me?). Facts such as exchange agreements / partnering universities are common to find on other university articles as well (although - you're right - they should be under the "Academics" headline / section and cut back quite drastically from my earlier edits).
I would therefore like to improve and re-edit the work I've put into the article, given that you agree.
User:Justin_Castreau has now had an opportunity to edit: from context, I think we can deduce that this can reasonably be interpreted as a reference to the right-wing meme attacking Justin Trudeau. I've blocked them accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. -- The Anome (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: thank you so much for considering Fawad Khan, It'd be an honour for me if you consider reviewing it even more deeply, if you are looking to find non-rs, then as of 12:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC) the article has 175 references to these 45 sources:
In the above list the number inside parentheses is the number of times article references to that source. I hope above list'll help to figure out which sources doesn't comply with FAC. Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Amirk94391: I've replied in some detail; if I've completely misunderstood a source and/or insulted anyone, I apologise :) but, as I said, the important thing to remember is that at FAC you will have to justify your usage of every source (well, every one that gets questioned) in some detail. So, look at this as a dress rehearsal for that happy day :) good luck with it, though, definitely. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
…that I think you may find interesting. It comes at the subject matter from the literature side, but its essential argument is historicist, and it touches neatly on several points I believe are to your interest. Oh, and as an added exercise: spot the obvious redlink in that article. :) --Xover (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Murder of Deborah Linsley 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Winged Blades of Godric: and Serial number. You both removed the speedy on the above article. The original CSD was at 87 % and was originally removed as a reverse copyvio which it wasn't which is why I replaced it as it was an error on the part of the editor. WBoG then changed his edit on my talk page to say that it was a simple quote that could be removed, as I pointed out it was nearly all the article and not a simple quote. He then removed part of the copy vio to drop it down to 66 % as I said on the talk page the article creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and I have serious doubts about his notability. So I believe that I was justified in replacing it and as I don't beilieve he is notable I will not rewrite the sodding thing because that is not what I am here for. Copyvio is a good way of catching and removing indesirable content and one of the first things that we are told to look for as new pages patrollers. Now you have removed the tag the history contains all the copyvio and I think you should ask for it to be redacted. As per this discussion that you may both have missed on the NPP talk page it has been suggested that articles created by socks should be deleted as per WP:DENY even if they are notable. This was a golden opportunity to remove it quickly and easily. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Considering that I and Latreia were the editors who discovered the mess and launched the SPI as well as the concurrent cleanup, believe me when I say that someone is notable.Obviously, you can take him to AFD.~ Winged BladesGodric13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but I do not see the connexion. Just because you reported the article creator as being a sock puppet I should believe you when you say that the article that he created is notable? I think I am missing something here. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Further, sans the quote and the list (which shan't be ever included whilst checking for G12), check the copyvio % again and whether it deserved a G12.Furthermore, as to copyvio is a good way of catching and removing indesirable content, desirability isn't decided by you and the venue is that way.~ Winged BladesGodric14:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Did you read the NPP talk page thread that I posted? Did you read WP:DENY? Of cource if the article is rewritten then there will be no copy vio, that is not the point I am trying to make. And I still don't understand why I have to believe you when you say he is notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It was excessive use of non-free text under a fair use claim (quotes and citations). We typically just remove the text and make a note on the talk page in those cases. The stuff that wasn’t the quote didn’t pass the threshold of originally. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis, Winged Blades of Godric, and TonyBallioni: Thanks for this ladies and gentlemen. Glad it's all sorted out out now; bad time to go for a sandwich huh. The only thing left unsaid perhaps is in regards to the speedies themselves. The original G12 clearly did not appply after the first reduction; G5 applies but slightly subjectively relies on what is considered to be "substantial" input from other editors; and A7 would almost certainly have been removed—I would have, as it proffers a credible claim of significance-which is all it needs to do to avoid A7. AfD is, of course, as the feller says, thataway. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
If this editor hadn't been a confirmed sockpuppet I would probably agree with you but should we be wasting our time with probably non-notable articles that were 87% copied form elsewhere by a sockpuppet? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I certainly do agree that WP:G5 was the best criterion to have filed under (and yes, you should probably have done so orignally!) As I said, though, it's not infallible, as it rather peskilly rests on the "no substantial edits by others" qualification, which can be—debatable? >SerialNumber54129...speculates16:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree that's why I didn't use it. I believe that is only for when a user creates a sock to continue editing after having been blocked for any reason and this sock is then blocked. But the sockmaster has to have been blocked beforehand. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Those are two different things: if a sock creates articles and the master is found to be socking, you'll have difficulty in avoiding a stampede of admins (collective noun?) to delete the articles of the sock (not the master), whether the article was created post- or ante-blocking. >SerialNumber54129...speculates17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
de Umfraville
Nosing around, I saw that one of your recent GA noms was for Robert de Umfraville. The mame caught my attention because, in intervals between drudgery, I've been researching the life of a minor 20th century novelist, Louis Wilkinson, whose middle name was Umfreville. The name is very unusual to find in one born in 1881, and despite the slightly different spelling I am wondering if there is some family connection with the de Umfravilles. Wilkinson's father was a Suffolk clergyman who did not carry the Umfreville name – it may have come from his mother's family. I realise that five centuries is a long time, but if you know of any information on the later history of the de Umfravilles, I'd be pleased if you could point me to it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sory to say, Brianboulton, that I know almost nothing about the family or its name—excet what I wrote in that article. I seem to remember I came to him via a redlink in another thing I did, so never really looked much further back. Or forward! If you've been trying to trace a connnection between the English Unfravilles and the Suffolk Umfreville with no joy, do you think it might be worth looking at the Scottish Umfravilles? They were the earliest branch, but that could suggest an even greater number of branches may have eventually survived. After all, the Eng Umfravilles had no cadet branches and QED nothing remains of them today. See what i mean? Best of luck with the research. A delight of obscurantism! >SerialNumber54129...speculates16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No. Wilkinson is too obscure to have had much written about him, and I couldn't find anything that links his family to any of the various Umfraville/Umfrevilles. I expect Louis's dad knew a little history and co-opted the name for his son. If anything worthwhile crops up it can be added to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I've got several "simmering" articles out there at the moment: Wilkinson, Oscar Browning, Leslie Hylton. All of them are probably reviewable, but seeing as how some reviews turn out these days I'm holding fire for the moment. I'll give you a nudge if/when I decide to take any of them forward. I hope to make a little progress with Rykener this evening. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably a brain fart but I thought I'd give you a heads up - you tagged this as U5, but it's in draftspace. Unquestionably promotional though so I've G11'd instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
It's deleted so it won't show up in your contribs, but I just double checked and it was yours. Weirdly the edit summary says G5 but the tag on the page definitely says U5. Not sure how that happened. I just tested and you can't normally put Ux-tags on Drafts from Twinkle, so possibly a Twinkle glitch. No big deal, doesn't matter in the end what caused it, just thought I'd heads-up you :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)16:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not here very often and I just saw the message about a deletion discussion on this list that I created. I see that you were the one who decided that it should not be deleted so I wanted to reach out to you and see if I can still voice my opinion in the discussion or is it too late? The page was not deleted, but I still thought it may be good to share my reasoning. Any advice you have would be appreciated. --RTotzke (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@RTotzke: Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. That particular discussion (or rather, that form of discussion), now closed, would only be reopened by another deletion nimination, and I don't suppose that's what you want! ;) I'd be glad to hear your reasoning myself; but, the best page to place it—and yes, you should do so—is on the talk page of the article. Perhaps head it, "Thoughts on notability" or something; but that way, t will be there for anyone to see if ever there is another nomination. Incidentally, any more sources discussing Australian photojournalists as a group and refering to the individuals you list would be Billy's bonus. Hope this helps—have a good week, wheresoever ye may be! Take care, ...SerialNumber54129...speculates21:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for a quick reply. Basically, I focus on art, photography, architecture, etc. since that is my major. I was looking at List of architects and saw that just about every country had a list except for Chinese architects (which was a red link). So, I created a page for List of Chinese architects to complete the series. Once of my main interests at the moment is photojournalism so when I saw the List of photojournalists which did not specify individual nationalities (or really any good organization in my opinion), I decided to start creating the lists by countries. I didn't realize that someone would object to it. Sorry if caused any issues for editors and hopefully my editing will go smoother here on out. Thank you again for such a quick reply. --RTotzke (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, I see the edits made to the page by other editors. I will follow closer to this format going forward as it seems to be what other editors like to see. --RTotzke (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Anjneytubesindia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Cahk: Remember to always check talk page histories—in this case, it had messages in it so won't (couldn't) be deleted. But I suggest asking (the blocking Anning perhaps) for talk page access to be revoked since they continue to spam it whilst blocked. Have a good weekend! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates09:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
If I'm lucky enough to count any experienced content creators amongst my talk-page watchers, they may wish to comment / moan at th3 above; all suggestions welcome—and considered. Except Iridescent who is by now sick to the back teeth of the guy :) I have spammed so many other blooming talk pages that I realised I had very rudely ignoted my own... ...SerialNumber54129...speculates14:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Ooops! —I seem to have put my foot in a hornet's nest here. But that stuff in the hatnots were (apart from just plain le bizarre) completely political and unacceptable, surely? Although not half so unacceptable as calling editors genocidally inclined in their editing—I think that's a one-strike-and-you're-out kind of remark eh. —SerialNumber54129...speculates16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Serial Number 54129, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 clearly states that "this criterion applies neither to sandboxes or to pages in the user namespace": So why did you tag the page then? If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room12:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Um... I can understand testing out CSDH, but why go the extra mile of adding an extra bit of text linking to SW's page? Primefac (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: Yes, I've had to uninstall it; I guess it's because I installed SoWhy's customized version rather thean the raw one (or something like that). But it was bizarre: it added loads of other little bits which were unnecesary to me (rating pages for projects, for ex.), and more importantly, buggered about with both the page history and edit tabs so that they disappeared. On top of that, other pages randomly linked me to null. A temporary wtf moment :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you, interesting stuff; yes I'll look in and see what the Bods are up to. I wondered why CSDs in userspace automatically submits them as AfC drafts, when CSDs elsewhere don't. Or something like that. Anyway: thanks for the information, I'll follow it with interest. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room19:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism versus just disruptive editing
Hello. An edit such as this is blatantvandalism, not just disruptive editing, and should result in a user warning for vandalism, which even though the level-3 warning for vandalism first talks about "disruptive editing" then specifies that it is vandalism, while the level-3 warning for disruptive editing talks about content disputes and points the user to dispute resolution. And changing "Kingdom of Sweden" to "Islamic Emirate of Sweden", and calling it an "Islamic country" and not a "Scandinavian country", is definitely not a content dispute. Which I felt a need to point out to you since you reverted my addition of a uw-v3-warning on the user's talk page... - Tom | Thomas.W talk14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
My first attempt to ping you failed because of me assuming that SerialNumber54129 without spaces, which is what your sig says, is your real username. An error I corrected in my next edit, less than a minute later, with new signature and all. So yes, I know how ping works, but thanks for telling me anyway... - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you could undo the close so that an admin could close it? To begin with, there were three delete votes, as the nom counts as a "delete" vote. Separately, the sourcing was not strong. I would prefer if an admin closed this discussion, if possible. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, this works fine, but when the (currently) first reference gets archived, it'll just show at the bottom of the archive page. Your call! Primefac (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see. Funny how I never actually checked the source of the reference link... in that case, you're probably spot-on! Primefac (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
References
^Usually these go with the section where the refs are found
Sources
Blud, V. (2017). The Unspeakable, Gender and Sexuality in Medieval Literature, 1000-1400. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN978-1-84384-468-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Comment on your userpage
I have to say, I was rather confused when I saw the comment on your userpage saying that the photo on it was ugly and with another user's signature. I thought it had to be vandalism that you would want removed, and thought you must have missed it somehow, but then I looked closer and apparently you actually want that comment on your userpage? Is that right? IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)talk03:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I would like to request the name of Israel Lucas Gois, he has great relevance in the Brazilian market, I would like to make an article about him, could you help me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Oliveira sá (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm not finding any articles about Israel Lucas Gois (with or without the accents). Will try some fuzzy searching., but it appears on the title blacklist so something serious must have happened. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: This sounds more in your dept. than mine :) I saw Several people tried to make a page about the investor israel lucas gois, I would like to request the unlocking of the name of Israel Lucas Góishere...but I can't see where it's been previously created or deleted anywhere (I guess there's lots of spelling variants)... or, of course, by whom, if you get my drift... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's on the title blacklist, but a user sandbox version could be created and then the page moved to the draft space for review. Obviously if there's a global blacklist entry for this person it will need to come under a fair amount of scrutiny, so at the very least I'd want it to go through AFC. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
*It turns out, of course I don't—but what I do have is some script or prefernce setting on which brings up a dialogue box for adding an edit summary to the rollback. So long since I actually read it that I couldn't remember waht it did! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
If you look at my commons.js I have computer magic there that gives you the popup in case you want it. It's not all that useful on desktop though. GMGtalk15:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you made an edit on the Isima Odeh article and made one a second after you. I didn't know you were making an edit on the page and I had no intention of edit warring. Anyway I was adding citation to the portion of the article you marked as 'unsourced' and I'll like to go on. Aghachi7 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Bonadea, while I'm getting crushed by a looming (18:00 tonight!) diss. proposal :) Sooo glad to hear that the grass isn't greener! :p Best of luck with it all though—and no rush...the garden's been here long enough to wait a little longer. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room14:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be attempting unilateral culling(s) and AfD despatches on some of the easier ones but given the amount of established SPAs devoted to the topic, I guess, tearing the wall down is going to be a difficult task.And, in all seriousness, what kind of whacko does write a biography of every person whose sole claim to fame is limited to being mentioned in the afore-mentioned book as someone close to Meher Baba?! ~ Winged BladesGodric14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This stuff's getting interesting:) Dazedbythebell, the editor who appeared out of thin air to revert my redirection, is a self-declared sock of Sharnak, one of the most prolific contributors to the walled garden, per his own t/p admission.So, I guess we've to think about one less user....(You may choose to check this userpage and follow the leads for some interesting insights).....I also note that the connection between the two accounts is no-where mentioned on either's user-page or t/p, in a prominent manner and that Dazedbythebell is a self-declared follower of MeherBaba per user-categories and his overlap with Hoverfish is umm........
You are welcome to call in a check user if you find anything suspicious connecting me to User:Dazedbytheebll (previously Sharnak). HoverfishTalk10:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I was merely basking in greatness :) "imitation, the sincerest form of flattery," etc., although whether Wilde or Colton said it first I don't know... thanks for that page though. >SerialNumber54129...speculates17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah... didn't Wilde add a bit about ...."that X can pay to greatness." Where X = a 19C. synonym for dumbass. Mind you, I seem to remember that OW was accused of plagarising other peoples' quotes too? Maybe that's what got me. >SerialNumber54129...speculates17:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
OW undoubtedly plagiarised his quotes, and was renowned for it even during his lifetime. (Whistler pricked this bubble of Wilde very neatly and epigrammatically at a Paris salon last season presided over by a well known and popular lady. Whistler had been notably witty during the evening and finally made a bon mot more than usually pointed and happy that convulsed his listeners. Wilde, who was present, approved Mr. Whistler’s brightness, and wondered why he had not thought of the witticism himself. ‘You will,’ promptly replied Whistler, ‘you will.’ This lightning comment on Mr. Wilde’s wonderful ability to think of other people’s bright things and to repeat them as his own had, you may imagine, an immediate and most discomforting effect on Mr. Wilde.J. M’Neill Whistler: The London Artist Coming to America to Lecture, The Sunday Herald, Boston MA, 24 Jan 1886, p.14.) ‑ Iridescent17:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for that, that must be what I was thinking of... acc. GoodReads, Oscar's was "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness." I wonder if that was almost an admission... >SerialNumber54129...speculates17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes
Hello SN. I agree with your statement on Oshwah's talk page. Oshwah is so conscientious about replies to posts there so I was trying to save him some hunting time. I almost mentioned forum shopping but thought there were enough flames in the situation already. I hope didn't make things worse but apologize if I did. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk23:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
No way, MarnetteD, you were actually being rather subtle, and I turned up in a pair of size thirteens :) which I realsie now but didn't at the time, sorry about that. In any case, your view certainly seems to be the accepted one, rightly so. Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I was looking over the most recent RfA and noticed with your !vote you were saying XTools reported you as the ninth top editor to WP:ANI. What's actually happening is XTools is only parsing the most recent 50,000 edits. There is a red banner at the top that explains this, which I'm assuming you missed. I have made this banner bigger and bolder, so hopefully it will be more obvious now. Should you have any other ideas on how to make it more clear that the data is limited, let me know :) Pinging Iridescent in case they have any input.
I wanted to also point out that in the "Top editors" table, there is a link to the Top Edits tool, which shows you all the edits that user made to that page. E.g. see [1] for your edits to ANI. This will give you an exact count. I see that Iridescent was using Sigma's usersearch to get this information, which is totally fine (I don't mean to discourage use of other tools), I just wanted to make you both aware of Top Edits since the link to it is right there in the Page History interface. Regards — MusikAnimaltalk18:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, MusikAnimal, only 4% edits there after all. Sorry, I must have missed that box but I do see what you mean. I hope you didn't take it personally- I wasn't really criticising the tool, more my (apparent!) over-indulgence at the dramaboard :) Thanks very much for going to the trouble of filling in me in with the details, extra information is always nice, leads to a more well-rounded perspective you know. Take care of youself! Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Confused
My response (look at the time stamp) came before your own. Is there something I'm missing as to why your comment should supercede my own in response to Golden Ring? -- ψλ ● ✉✓15:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
And what is this, Winkelvi?! -poking, or what :D Tbh, your response @AN/I could have drifted slightly closer to the Bay of Good Faith: I read GR's question—whilst slightly misguided to those that have seen the .gif all over the place, perhaps—as a legitimate one, in the circs. I'm not sure that you really needed to immediately accuse him of stirring the shitpot :) What's he done to you? Serious question—I assume there must be something, you don't normally fly off the handle. >SerialNumber54129...speculates15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's be clear, I never said shitpot, that was your addition. Something else we need to be clear on is that I have no ulterior motive here. As far as I know, Golden Ring and I have never interacted previously. At least not in my memory. Something else you should consider is that if so many people already have the American flag gif on their own user space, why would one more person putting it on theirs be poking the bear in any way? They likely aren't, and neither am I. Not that I need to explain why I put it there, but I do feel as if you're trying to build a case against me here, and I just wanted to clear that up as well. My comments to Golden Ring were merely to point out that because the discussion he seems to be trying to reopen was so contentious, and needed to be closed fairly rapidly, and it was... that I didn't see any good purpose in addressing anything more at the discussion. What he asked about could have been done plenty of other places in Wikipedia, it could have even been done on Sir Joseph's talk page, but it wasn't. Yes, I probably did lack some good faith in my question to Golden Ring, and for that I'll take the blame. But everything else that you have insinuated here is not very good faith-ish, either. Now back to the question of why you think your comment supersedes mine even though the timestamp states differently as does the guideline on talk pages and the manual of style. -- ψλ ● ✉✓16:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
a) Well, etymologically-speaking, stirring is stirring, whatever the contents of one's pot. b) I agree that GR's comment was overall unnecessary. c) I neither desire nor need to build a case against you. d) I'm also aware of how many editors use the flag gif, since I already pointed it out. e) The discussion is, as you wished, closed, which I too am grateful for. Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I obviously underestimated how much drama could come of an honest question about gifs interacting with the skin. It's really not that big a deal and wasn't ever meant to be. Sorry I ever mentioned it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I would have rated this comment of your's as an example of trolling of the lowest class, if not your pathetic attempt at the same shit-stirring, hours after a RFC on the issue has been closed was a serious competitor.Winged BladesGodric14:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, it's been over a month since you said it might take some time to address the three "citation needed" templates, and for a DYK, that's quite a long time. At this point, I think it's fair to give you until the end of January to finally address this issue, which was raised well before then. I hope very much to see progress by then. Please reply on the nomination itself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent: as the most comprehensive commentator on a previous PR, but open to all my TPS with experience of these things. (So probably about three then!)
Iridescent, you may remember that some time ago you were kind enough to look at the peer review I opened (here). As a result of some of your suggestions (particularly re. Chaucer, background and aftermath), I discovered much more material which substantially (~50%) increased (hopefully in an improvement) the article. To which end, I transferred work to my sandbox. Now, the point is, is that that's still unfinished (the aftermath is complicated), and I think I've bitten off more than I could chew for what may have ended up as a first FAC.
So the question is—whether it would be ethical or etiquette to ask for another PR of a different article (I was thinking maybe this chap?), even though the last one didn't actually "go" anywhere. Do you see what I mean? Basically—in light of being a FAV—would it be OK to start over which something a little more manageable in size? Any advice or suggestions would be most welcome from anybody on this. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't personally see any issue with it. FAC has rules against serial nominations to stop people flinging multiple articles at it to see what sticks, but PR is a purely voluntary process and if anyone isn't interested in the topic they'll just ignore it. If you're concerned about developing a reputation for spamming, just round up assorted people who you feel are likely to have something useful to say and ask them to comment. Giano, Ealdgyth, Eric Corbett, Brianboulton and SlimVirgin are a few who spring to mind who might have something useful to say. (All {{noping}}ed at this stage, in case you don't want to draw attention to it until you're ready.) ‑ Iridescent11:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for that Iridescent. No reason for secrecy, in fact the more the merrier I think :) It'll be a learning curve for me, so every little helps as some might say. My concern was more that editors might be put off going to the trouble of commenting at the PR if their previous efforts seemed to have been wasted or ignored; i.e., a feeling that there's no point in commenting as "it'll just end up in a sandnbox anyway"? Thanks again, >SerialNumber54129...speculates11:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Purely in my personal opinion, I think peer review as currently constituted is largely a dead horse. A process like that has a lot of value for new-ish editors asking "did I do this right and how can I do it better?" questions, but at FA level I find it easier to just post "hey, I just wrote an article on Droxford railway station, what do you think of it?" on the talkpages of people who I know are likely to take an interest. While Wikipedia has thousands of editors, in any given field the number of people is usually small enough that you can track them all down fairly easily. ‑ Iridescent13:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this to this is rather inspirational :) well, I think I'll open a pr for now and bear that in mind for the future...I'll have to find a few medievalists I guess; shame that this is the state of the (most) relevant wikiproject. I'll do that dyk now. Thanks again, >SerialNumber54129...speculates14:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
People don't tend to watch the small subprojects. To be honest, in this case a comment on User talk:Ealdgyth will be just as effective a notification as spamming every project, since anyone with any involvement in medieval England is either going to have worked with her or to have been in an argument with her, and in either case will have her talk page watchlisted. ‑ Iridescent14:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't THINK I've had that many arguments with people over medieval English topics... certainly not as much as rumbles through the horse stuff (see Skowronek for an example...) Ealdgyth - Talk18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Uh, no. I'm already deep into Polish ... something - (I can't figure out if its nationalism or what it is) at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp, and a not-related but still tangental to Poland horse argument at Talk:Skowronek (horse). The "purity" of the Arabian horse arguments are something that is quite insane looking to outside observers, I'm sure. But it's a big big big deal in the Arabian horse world and gets quite as much ink spilled over it as some of the worst of the Israel-Palestine stuff... just because it's horses doesn't mean people don't push POVs... Ealdgyth - Talk14:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The Polish government recently criminalized making any claim that the holocaust was anything other than a purely German affair (the innocuously-titled Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance). Consequently, there's a freshly-raging culture war on whether the concentration camps were in "annexed German" or "occupied Polish" territory as the latter implies a connection between the holocaust and Poland. That's a fight I'd stay well away from; this will be another Kiev/Kyiv unresolvable dispute where each side has a sincere belief that it will be a breach of morals if they back down. (If you really want a fight about events that happened a thousand years ago, I'm sure I can rustle up some Bulgarians for you.) ‑ Iridescent14:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to get to it soonish. Hoping to go see Black Panther tonight so... (all depends on if the hubby doesn't get bogged down at work...) Heh. Ealdgyth - Talk18:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries Alex Shih I told you it wasn't urgent—just pulling your leg :)—and as I said, I've got plenty to be doing; look, I haven't even moaned about this, and that makes you look like Speedy Gonzales!!! Mind you, expecting anyone to sully their hands witth anything as sordid as GAs when they've got Infobox II around the corner is probably slightly naive! Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks Ealdgyth, no way, your PR is absolute gold dust, please. Just to say, I'm working on it as we spaek, but I'm doing it in big chunks and haven't save the page yet (whiiiich I should probably do ASAP). thing is, I'm likely to expand bits here and there (his crap inheriatnce and the Fitzalan dispute, I think mainly)—you'll be OK with that? Thanks again, it's exactly what I wanted-an Iridescent-syle forensic dissection. After all, it will only make it stronger in the long run, won't it. How was Black panther, btw?—worthy of the hype? >SerialNumber54129...speculates14:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
BP was very very good. I'm not sure it was quite up to Civil War or either of the Guardians, but it was very very close. We had some technical glitches and got started late and then missed about 5 minutes near the end (because the computer didn't realize we'd started late...) so we got passes to see it again We did see the two end credit scenes, though. It's possible seeing the missing bits at the end will make me rate it a bit higher... we'll see. Looks like we'll go Sunday or Monday to see it in 3D then too. (We almost always see Marvel movies at least twice - I saw Guardians 2 four times, and Wonder Woman five - it's the only way to catch most of the in-jokes). I'd say worthy of the hype.... but not something for folks who haven't liked the other MCU movies...Ealdgyth - Talk15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll hold off on more PR until you're done with the changes you're working on... don't want to cause edit conflicts as I fix small stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Cheers Ealdgyth, I'm all done there for now—see what you think—happy saturday! Cheers,
Was this accidental?
No. It was an attempt to clear up the promotional material for the band by an editor who has done little else. It points only to their bandcamp page and a listing which lists them as having 0 fans. It hasn't been edited on 2.5 years. So, no, it wasn't a mistake. Since you think it'll improve I'll move it to draft an we can see how it fares. Cabayi (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Thanks for this. A couple of points: i)I didn't say it would improve, I said that I would strip it of its spammy verbiage when I get back to a desktop. ii) WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP (see also WP:ATD). iii) My edit summary also expressed doubts as to its notability; but then, WP:N expressly does not apply to userspace. iv) 2.5 years = WP:NODEADLINE, perhaps (also see WP:STALE). v) Ultimately, regardless of all the points you made, WP:G11 is intentionally and fundamentally narrow, and your nomination did not meet the critera (clearly does not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with WP:NOTFORPROMOTION"). Cheers!—and happy editng. >SerialNumber54129...speculates12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but look at it like: a crap article—is still an article (although crap). However, yes, I forgot the criteria you used, apologies. Tbh, of course, U5 is equally strict, if slightly vague: what part of WP:NOT would have applied? >SerialNumber54129...speculates12:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I look at it as a user page. Of the author's 23 contributions (20 still visible) 17 were devoted to this band, 16 of those in user space. A band which, by the author's best efforts wouldn't reach a "credible claim of significance", let alone notability. A band so lacking in any point of interest it could only sustain the editing efforts of someone closely associated with the band.
WP:U5 "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, with the exception of plausible drafts"
WP:UPYES "advertising for your band will probably be too much"
As it's now in Draft it can sink or swim on its merits rather than the ambiguity of how it should be handled in userspace. Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Cabayi (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, obviously anyone is welcome to dispute the close at AN, which I think may be important for testing the application and scope of two new policies that are both in play here. Unfortunately I have to run without enough time to wait for a response. GMGtalk15:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Tempting opportunity to say you shouldn't be running anywhere at your age, GmG :p [FBDB] But I suppose: on the one hand I prefer not to re-open something I'm quasi-involved in, but on the other, someone who hasn't commented might not see the need to do so...uurgh —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Given that I looked for about five minutes through both of your contribs just to see what you were talking about (and only came up with this gem), you make it difficult for an uninvolved admin to do anything. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah well. @Lingzhi: perhaps it will make it easier in the long run; anyone currently questioning the sources can have them presented to them oen masse on the talk page, and then when it goes back to FAC, all the big things will have been settled....is certainly how it should work anyway. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room14:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The nomination of articles for deletion is a rather complicated process, with several steps. I made my first nomination today, and after I read the steps that should be followed for manual nominations, I decided to use Twinkle. It makes the process much easier and quicker. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't even figure out where all that South Park stuff came from... first !voter immediately jumps to the largest OTHERSTUFF they could find? Primefac (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you post a similar warning on the Talk page of Drmies who made the same number of edit-warring edits to that page as I did? Attack Ramon (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
So you're his friend or a hypocrite, or both. Glad we sorted it out, and I know how much weight to place on your 'warning'. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you post something to my page labeled "Warning" - ", threaten me with being blocked , but I shouldn't take it as a warning? Just admit you acted rashly and used double standards, we all make mistakes. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. You did make a mistake, you wikilinked "gay" in an incorrect context, were told it was wrong, and then you did it again. The "warning" was simply "please don't edit-war to include something incorrect". Now, let's all get back to doing something useful. Black Kite (talk)15:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, Kal, given that I just closed the thread about potentially tbanning you from Cross-related matters, it might be worth it to step back for a bit, just so that I don't change my mind and re-open for further discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked that IP by the way. I wasn't kidding when I wrote the warning on Philip Cross's talk page. And Primefac wasn't threatening you; he was warning you. --NeilNtalk to me17:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @KalHolmann: Per {{u|Primefac]]. Furthermore, do you really think that accusing someone of a) employing people to do hit jobs on the internet or b) having enemies on the afore-mentioned internet 9specifically, the world's fifth-most frequently visited site, etc.) does not infringe on our BLP guidelines? In case you're unaware, they apply not just to our biographical articles, but on commentay, talk page or passing, in general. Incidentally, apart from being a highly respected editor in these parts, Primefac is one of my most appreciated talk-page stalkers, and any time they deign to drop in and brighten this small dingy corner is a godsend; so I'd much rather you didn't tell them not to post here. Or anywhere, for that matter. There's little enough light that shines here as it is. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You jumped in too quickly and spoiled my chance to make a slightly off-color remark. In the current context the only thing I could say would be too off color. EEng12:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the cheap laugh EEng#s, Serial Number 54129's signature is living up to it's name . Serial Number 54129, we're still good. You are right, we have always generally gotten along well (though "Fortuna" was a better username in my opinion, mainly because I read it as "for tuna" and I love tuna ) and I do respect your oppose (please don't take that as agreement with it though). --TheSandDoctorTalk18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Glad to see you still have a good sense of humour :D. Thank you and I will be sure to. Don't worry, I wouldn't do that (can't find that April fools uw-block one anymore anyways (don't worry, did believe that template inappropriate to an extent and would not use it) --TheSandDoctorTalk18:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Careful on the edits please
Hi Serial,
You've reverted[1] (for the second time) my own reversions of incorrectly justified edits, and done it insultingly with incorrect claims.
You accused me in your last edit of
a) writing the original content myself (I didn't as I had already pointed out in my response to your drive-by warning on my user talk page, and you could have seen in the history)
b) conducting original research (see above)
c) being disingenuous (insulting, and see above) and
d) commanding me to discuss in talk (after making the edit, and after ignoring my previous polite request to do just that)
Ensure all edits (especially ones likely to be challenged) are undertaken calmly, and with a clearly explained rationale.
Do not insult.
Check the history of edits before making claims about them.
Do not speedily-delete the edits of others and then drop warnings on their pages when they find themselves in the middle of an edit war you have started (even though I am sure you will have done so unintentionally).
@Conan The Librarian: Please actually read the policies you are attempting to cite. My edit-summaries were not uncivil, and template messages—which have been designed to explain a particular administrative consequence—by their nature cannot be so. Frankly, even if I told you that you do not know what you are talking about, I may be less civil, but far more accurate. Be advised that if you continue to insert your own original research or otherwise editorialise, administrative intervention may be requested.Further, I have not insulted you; my edit-summaries have been (overly, even_ comprehensive, and with all, backed by policy. Yours, on the other hand, have been poorly or unsourced almost every time. Your saying otherwise does not make it so, except in your eyes. Yet, if you have finally stopped edit-warring, then presumably the system works. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I am happy for any independent arbitration if it will help you understand how describing somebody as disingenuous for research they haven't undertaken breaches common and wikipedia civility standards. In other aspects I am sure there is much I can learn from you on editing. Conan The Librarian (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Conan The Librarian, as someone who has never even visited that article before about thirty seconds ago (i.e. I'm "independent"), I can say that SN's edits were entirely and 100% acceptable (well, maybe 99%). There was absolutely nothing wrong with how they edited or what they said, and when you are reverted for a "big" edit it is your responsibility to start the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Primefac: Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately - and I hope you will understand - I have to question your independence as you are clearly a frequent correspondent with Serial, so have a relationship which with the best will in the world may influence your judgement and willingness to criticise.
However, I'll assume good faith and accept your arbitration when you have explained how my criticisms above are inaccurate.
In particular, please address the following points:
1. How accusing somebody of being "extremely disingenuous" for conducting original research (for the nth time, the text I reverted was *not* mine!) is entirely and 100% (maybe 99%) acceptable wrt to any common or wikipedia civility standards. To reiterate - if the reversion of my edits had been done politely and with clear reasons I would not have challenged them.
2. I would not claim my editing history is perfect - I'm still learning - but I don't see how I am any more guilty of "edit-warring" than Serial, yet he/she is the one dropping warnings all over the place (including one made in minutes of the last contentious edit. coincidental?). That behaviour should also be factored in, it seems (to me) provocative and possibly emotional and could give clues as to the motivation behind the very rude accusation above.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter, I have appreciated some of the contributions both of you have made elsewhere and welcome the opportunity to learn from you. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think, Conan The Librarian, from experience, that at the point one questions the integrity of an editor—and not just an editor, but an administrator—one should take one's complaint to a noticeboard, as that is an extremely serious allegation. It certainly is not one which can be made and then coyly annulled by deigning to assume good faith; that should have been your consideration from the beginning. If I have a good working relationship with Primefac—and them with me—it is because I (indeed, we both) obey the policies that the community has made standard and behave in a manner that the community considers collegiate. If I didn't: Primefac, I assure you, would be at the front of the queue to say otherwise. Since you state you are willing to learn, you would do far worse than starting with that. Suggesting otherwise is casting a clear aspersion—and is the only breach of WP:CIVIL made by anyone in this conversation yet.Let me put it another way: I suggest you either strike that comment and apologise or file at WP:ANI. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room15:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Serial, I am still waiting (not optimistically) for a retraction and apology from you as per your breach on multiple fronts of "avoiding incivility"; given my patience and repeated attempts to be polite and conciliatory in this matter so far, I do not think your new tactic of redirecting the argument onto another participant is helpful (in my experience it is normally done when somebody believes their position is weak), and I will leave the (IMO) unwise option of invoking ANI to you if you feel that strongly about it.
Ha, Drmies! I'm surprised it was closed so soon but I do realise that 24 hours is an accepted minimum and, as the closer has just said there, it had the makings of a pile-on, which isn't a particularly edifying spectacle. Even the single oppose wasn't really an oppose. A sad situation, though, and I derive no great satisfaction from it. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Expending some more thoughts on the issue, the language of the template seems to be very ill-chosen.I mean how can an article need cleanup to meet the notability guidelines? Even G11 doesn't say anything about notability.....
Yeah...The likely intention of the template-tagging was to satisfy UNIGUIDE (I'm reading this for the first time).My problems with the language of the template lie(d) with it's contradiction of WP:OVERCOME but it's probably wise to let it go.....Anyways, thanks:)∯WBGconverse18:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to comment your DYK nom with the double name, but it doesn't exist? Was it moved? (That's a no-no.) - Anyway, comment here: in the (way too complex for my taste) hook, "sex-in" (linked!) makes no sense, I assume "sex in" would be better. Please fix, especialle the template, if you expect us to do something ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Gerda; I have no idea how to fix the DYK nom :) I suspect it's because nomination titles are formatted Template:Did you know nominations/ XYZ, but because this has another / in the article title already, it is cancelling out the previous one. Or something like that. I guess one of the coordinators can / will / may sort it...eventually... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room13:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess the "/" in the title may cause problem. So I just said it's a no-no, but in this case would move to a different name (doesn't have to be the article name, as long as the article is correct within the nom), and start over adding to the nominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Happy to help, yes, the template seems to work fine, - but sex-in still needs a fix ;) - Seriously, I have no idea how not to include in a link what follows without a space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. >Typ932T·C12:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Heh, funny. I'm sorry you're confused Typ932; having refactored another user's talk page, and then being advised not to, you respond by referencingWP:DRRC...the very thing that at least two editors have now warned you about? Seriously? You might want to think ahead slightly before commenting.Also, comments and edit-summaries such as "remove b..it comments", "rvt child comments, "remove kids posting" and "learn to read" are verging on, if not outrightly, theuncivil. In fact, your general disposition seems rather beligerent—now, it's some time since an admin intimated that you were close to appearing to not know what you are talking about. Normally, after over nine months, I'd assume that you'd learned from that and recalibrated your approach; it seems, perhaps, this has not come to pass. On a lighter note, unlike unwanted messages on your talk page, which you remove—as is your right—almost immediately, this is going to stay here as an object lesson in what not to do...with templates and in communication. Caoi! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room13:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
PLs remove that dog picture lower left corner, this talk page unreadable and I dont need teaching from other editors, I didnt ask anything from you, If other editor is not understanding and keep vandalizing pages there is really no need that you come adding your smart comments. And yes I use those word because Im sick of telling them same things million times when they dont seem to understand whatever Is said, so there must be something wrong with those editors. There is really no need to you to come between these discussions/edits because you dont know the history of these cases, so pls avoid coming to other users edits or talks pages if you are not participant of that case. [User:Typ932|Typ932]] T·C18:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't want to make some else's talk page into a drama filled place, but I do feel I should comment.
1. Typ932 It was correct for this user to inform you about you restoring comments on my talk page. Criticism often is better from an uninvolved third party. It's a far better option than being reported to ANI.
2. Your edit summaries and combative and in breach of civility rules. Rather than argue the point, just being more polite would be a great solution.
3. Don't complain about the dog picture. It's a gorgeous looking dog and it made me smile.
4. "I use those word because Im sick of telling them same things million times when they dont seem to understand whatever Is said, so there must be something wrong with those editors." I'm sorry, but there are no excuses for breaching civility rules. Also when you tell multiple editors they are wrong, but they don't follow you - you might want to consider it is you making the mistake, not the other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Dog picture makes this talk page unreadable . I dindt make mistake it was you when you started chasing me here in wikipedia, pls stop it. -->Typ932T·C09:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to use a larger screen or change resolution? The dog picture is right in the corner of the screen when I look at it and doesn't affect my ability to read any of the text. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, thanks to the fact that you need to re-edit your bloodly post three times, I got that number of edit-conflicts on my own page only then to discover that you've deleted the whole thead! Have you read WP:REFACTOR. Have I mentioned misused of Rolback prevously. What gives. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room13:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what it says, but it also mentions "it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected". As with all things, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, a good helping of common sense never goes amiss. You strike me as a keen editor, and that's great, but you really do need to slow down a bit and consider the edits you make - TNT💖15:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! DS alerts are very important on topics such as the Balkans, they and some friendly advices can help inexperienced editors find the right path on Wikipedia. Cheers :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the accidental removal, just realising the current version was actually different from the archive one. It seems they have edited the news by removing that part. Night Lantern (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
As I stated at the GA discussion venue, I have no alternate/original account. Could you please stop accusing me of sockpuppetry without a proper investigation and evidence? I'd love that bit resolved peacefully, and I do look forward to continuing constructive work on the encyclopedia. Thanks, EggRoll97(talk | contribs) 11:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to write in this moment. Maybe wait till the Chainsmokers release their second album or maybe local food in HK. I really love reverting vandalism. Sorry if I disappointed you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this counts as irony -- probably not really -- but your reminder that I should sign my posts seems to have deleted the automatic "{{unsigned}}" notice, in effect "unsigning" my post. I suspect edit conflicts with the bot. I "re-signed" -- un-un-re-signed? -- it, but thought you'd like to know. --Calton | Talk23:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from posting irrelevant "warnings" on others users talk pages, the case has been reviewed by an admin (Number 57) who blocked Kleuske. If i had to be warned for edit-warring, Number 57 would have warned me. Also, since your behavior seems to be WP:NOTHERE, do not post on my talk page again. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Listen guys, i do not know you and i have never interracted with any one among you before, so, just drop it, and everybody go back to his work, ok ? The case has been reviewed by an admin, and if, according to you, i made 4 revert in 26 hours, your friend Kleuske made 6 in two days and against two editors, right ? Also, Serialnumber accusing me of misrepresenting other editors but is unable to provide a single evidence for this and allows himself to "warn" me, this is a personal attack. Take care everybody. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikaviani, as you've banned Serial Number from your talk page...a rule I'm sure he's particularly depressed about...why do you think you have the right to continuously post here? CassiantoTalk19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
To answer to your question, i post here because Serialnumber did not ban me, that simple. Also, i'm very happy that he's not depressed because the last thing i want is to hurt anyone. And since Serial number seems to have many friends here on Wikipedia, this means probably that he is not WP:NOTHERE as i said above, therefore, Serial Number 54129 and all of you, you're welcome to my talk page if you have constructive edits to do there, not like an irrelevant warning. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't be impertinent. Any fool knows that if you ban someone from your talk page you don't want to talk to them, yet here you are...talking to them. CassiantoTalk20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a question of education. To make it clear, i have some fighting skills allowing me to badly hurt anybody who would physically attack me, but i've never hurt someone (verbally or physically) only for some words. I said all of you are welcome to my talk page to make constructive edits, but of course, if it's for posting an irrelevant warning like he did, just refrain to do so, especially when an admin has already checked the case. Also, between you and me, i'm wondering who is impertinent here ... Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
"Between you and me"? It's a talk page, so clearly it's not, is it. With regards to the rest of your unintelligible babble, I'm afraid I haven't the energy to work it out. Good evening. CassiantoTalk20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I just meant that according to me, refusing to speak with someone who wants to have a constructive discussion with me would be hurting that person and therefore, i avoid having this kind of misconduct, that's all. I banned Serial number from my talk page because judging by his behavior, i thought he was WP:NOTHERE (i.e unconstructive behavior) but this was a mistake and therefore, i do not refuse speaking with him, end of story. I hope that if any of you and me interract in the future, it will be for constructive purposes. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Wait just a second here. How in the hell did this conversation end up with you talking about "fighting skills"? What was the point of that little foray? For two - I am pretty sure you've never read WP:NOTHERE - or if you have, you clearly don't understand it. SQLQuery me!23:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Insert *Well, That Escalated Quickly* template here* Thanks everyone for addressing this. Cassianto is quite correct (glad to see you arise, Lazarus-like! For good, hopefully)—I have no desire to spend any more time on Wikaviani's page than I have to; but, of course, if they think that their page ban—such as it is—will prevent the leaving of legitimate notices regarding sanctions and restrictions, then they are sorely mistaken: per WP:NOBAN: a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to.
The reason for the e/w notice originally was that, although the editor is clearly aware of 3RR, is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Their appreciation of that subtlety is less clear and warranted a reminder.
What do you think i meant by that SQL ? do you really think i was threatening anybody ??? if you think so, then block me (indef), because this would be a serious breach in Wiki rules (especially WP:NPA). I was just saying that i have never hurt anybody (verbally or physically) because of some words so that if my ban hurt Serialnumber, then i'm sorry and would be pleased to work with him or anybody else for constructive purposes. I hope this is clear for everybody. As to WP:NOTHERE, i think i understood it quite well, but of course, i'm only a new user here and i may be wrong. If you have anything else to tell me, then please use my TP, because i don't want to disturb Serialnumber with this WP:TLDR thread anymore. Thank you. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Well of course you're going have escalation when you have nearly 200 page watchers... also, I think this is the first time I've seen parallel nested conversations at different indent points... nosy admin / likes to stalk13:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'd have reacted so much sooner if I had a computer of some kind to use. As it is, I have a phone that refuses to load the mass of indents here. Aside from joining the chorus of "here" voices, I'd just suggest that in the future, wikiviani, that you check a user's contributions first before suggesting a nothere motive. A minute on that page would be evidence enough. Hope you and yours are well SN. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, per WP:DRAFTIFY, we have some clear guidelines for draftying drafts, 1(a) to 3(a), while we are now saying about the accuracy of us pushing drafts to mainspace and to survive an AFD. This AFD that I am now in is really the anti-thesis, wanting to draftily everything that cannot meet mainspace. The page was created in mainspace, due to the fact that it is a new editor, I didn't tag for CSD but AFD, and then the rest of the conversation continues. If you have interest visit this AFD. This is part of my NPP. While we are now pushing for notablity to be included in MFD, with such people trying to draftify anything back to AFC/draftspace and wanting even a proceedural close on the AFD. We are nowhere, on one hand, we are faced with new editors wanting their drafts to mainspace, on the other hand, we are facing editors who are equally new who created articles on mainspace then wanted to draftiy. On record, I had draftified up to now 2 WP:TOOSOON drafts back to AFC / draft space. However, many still think this is a given where clearly we have, by our discretion whether 1(a) to 3(a). I raised this issue is that so ironically above we are discussing about survival rate of drafts into mainspace (which is the central focus on legacypac pushing them to the mainspace then AFD it - which is now close) and now people are crying for why we don't draftify in an AFD. What shall be our approach to new users (who for most didn't but some did) who take the game of 1. I start an article in draftspace, and then it cannot go anywhere, then insist to get into mainspace, since at MFD we still can't (which I hope that AFC can do something) say about notablity, the draft keep on get resubmitted and kept. 2. Start an article on mainspace, then see that there is where we can apply A7 / AFD then realized how scary is the mainspace world and wanted to be moved back to draft. I think we have to, as far as we don't BITE, which I clearly don't do but rather (I tried even in NPP to improve articles to make sure those are able to meet mainspace like in AFC) the newcomers, we must have some sort of mechanism to really tell them gently what is acceptable and what is not. --Quek157 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Quek157: Thanks very much for the information—you didn't forget, I reverted you on this page, hope you don't mind, but I didn't know you'd withdrawn it and I have to keep things here otherwise I forget to answer them—which is very rude (actually, confession: even that doesn't always work, as I've just noticed a thing a bit further up which I still haven't replied to—D'oh!). Anyway, thaks for the explanatory note, much appreciated. Have a good weekend! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I will like a proper RFC but let the qualifications part clear up first and let things settle, and an admin is also involved there without respect of due process, that's just wow me. --Quek157 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Was wondering if you wouldn't mind...
taking a look at an article I worked on a while ago, am wondering what you think in general it might take to get it to GA status. I would like to get it to GA status but am kind of stumped as to what those possible improvements should be (lol am thinking its present state is just fine). Another editor thought the article wasn't long enough.... Anyway, the article is DeFord Bailey. Any help gratefully appreciated. Thanksevrso, Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Shearonink, long time no see :) and thanks for dropping by! Very flattering, actually, since you do GA reviews and I don't! But you're right, that's a nice little article. As for size, I think it's OK (just!)—I asked a similar question once, and the minimum that's generally considered acceptable seems to be around 500 words. Although the important thing of course is not so much length as that it is substantial enough in its coverage to pass WP:WIAGA#3a. Which this clearly does. The only other thing I'd really suggest is that, depending how much work you want to put in to it, it could probably be—possible substantially—expanded. At the moment it uses a fair few sources, but I think there's plenty more that could be used. I'm not a topic expert at all, and I've only given the sources a cursory (glance AKA I could be talking out of my hat) but an item-specific search brings up lots of things in both news reports and the literature that are not used. Similarly, I note that he is the subject of at least one substantial monograph (the Morton biog, here, an academic text so a good / unimpeachable source) which I'd suggest is extremely underused in the article. Obviously, it shouldn't be given undue weight, but I'm sure there's plenty more that could be added, especially combined with bits and pieces from the other sources. It would certainly allay any fears a reviewer may have regarding length.Sorry to ramble—hope this is useful! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room11:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Very helpful. Thanks so much. Yeah I'm aware of the Morton biography, very much so...that's how I got permission for that photo - I corresponded with the author. I am somewhat fearful of using *too* much of the bio. I think maybe some of the facts surrounding Mr. Bailey's life - there are different stories about how he came to be on the radio in the first place, some of the jobs he had to take to make a living before he was on the radio and then after he was blackballed off the Opry, maybe some stories about when DeFord Bailey was such a huge star...stuff like that. I'll have to think about what to expand - it would be nice to have it as a GA...Thanks again - Shearonink (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Shearonink: I think corresponding with real life authors is really great! (I didn't reaise that, sorry—do they like the article?) Yes, think you could definitely use more of it, particularly if that is then balanced with an equal amount from other sources. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room13:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that user made a few edits to that article and another to a deleted article about a group that person belonged to; based on their edit summary the user represented that group. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter Matthews (artist) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
H'mmm—thanks, Ceranthor; I have to confess, I don't hold out much hope for this one I'm afraid (by implication, I hope I'm not wasting everyone's time with the GAN). It's so far out of my comfort zone that i have no natural knowledge (or even any particular appreciation) of the subject, and I think that's generally fatal. Combined with the fact that I have no access to sources, I think it's a no-no, at least right now. And yes, I know your first point wil probably reference WP:LEADLENGTH :p I'll expand it tomorrow, UTC. Even so, thanks for looking at it, and I do hope it doesn't waste your time. Have a good weekend—Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room19:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It does seem like a niche topic, so I wouldn't be discouraged by the dearth of sources on him. Or do you mean that you haven't been able to access all the available sources on Matthews? ceranthor19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Serial Number 54129, regarding the list on WP:MHCOORD, I gave you a credit for your review work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward the Elder, which is why your name appeared there. I'm sorry that your experience of the project has not been a positive one. If you do not wish to receive a barnstar for this, we will of course respect your wishes. Nevertheless, please accept my personal thanks for your involvement with that review. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Ha! It seems I am not alone. A colleague of yours seems also to have observed similar terseness, wall-of-text bludgeoning and what appears to be a general aversion towards both nuance or the mildest of criticism. I appreciate this reply is somewhat belated—although I did thank you for your post four minutes after you made it :) —but this has only just been brought to my attention. In any case, thank you for the work you do there, our few interactions were always pleasanat and productive. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room09:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
G'day, it's probably not my place to say, but to be honest, I have had a very different (positive) experience with them, and I am hopeful that potentially some of what happened may have been a misunderstanding due to the impersonal nature of this medium for communication. But anyway, it is probably best to let bygones be bygones. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to the rescue of Psalm 137! I nominated that thing for DYK in February, in the meantime these tags could have been posted and hopefully resolved. No, on the day when it's exposed on the Main page ... - Thank you again. I wanted to give you the thistles from the cabal of the outcasts, but rather use this white space ;) - The flowers are on my talk for the month of July. I fixed the big tag in the Psalm, but there are still lots of small ones, if you still have energy. I need to turn to my woman of the day, and have two DYK reviews waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the meaning of that word, "test"? - Was out all day. I sourced the first section, or so I thought, but the tag bomber wasn't satisfied, one seems to be wrong, one missing. Again, was out all day, and will be again for a concert. Sources must be in the Wasserflüssen but I can't see them, - hate to use a ref I haven't seen. Wouldn't be surprised if the tb took the refs I found to the other article ;) - Last time: no time for that! Several tasks waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
How do I find my Serial Number? Also I answered the question you were getting at on T:GMG, on my talk page, you might want to take a look, although I still aren't giving exact details. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that this OP is a sockpuppet of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, it has been indef. blocked, as well as being global locked. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Well I never, I am actually half-way through sending an email to BU Rob13 saying "I think Prince of Thieves is a Dysklyver sock, can you quietly checkuser it and do the honours, ta" (or words to that effect). I've just binned it as superfluous. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
If you don't convert 54129 to hex and turn it upside down, you get (the anagram of) "b∀lƧS" if you read it in a mirror, liberally. Lourdes00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
You may want to add a caveat to your First Law, Ritchie333. Usually, editors who are part of WikiEd will make their first edit to their user page. Perhaps "Any account whose first edit is to their own user or user talk page is a sock or has the assistance of an experienced editor"? That's probably pretty accurate. ~ Rob13Talk14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe it stops at 1k IIRC. The worst is moving an image on commons and getting a half dozen notifications thanking you for your contributions to the Klingon wiki quote, ASL wiktionary, and ancient Egyptian wikipedia... over... and over again. GMGtalk21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see--I get a notification anytime "cute" is used outside of article space. One of the developers must have liked me. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
"Klingon wiki quote, ASL wiktionary, and ancient Egyptian wikipedia" - well that's my day made! simple things, simple minds - TNT❤21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I just got a notification that I'd made a slightly higher number of edits (it does go beyond 1K, evidently) - pity it didn't notify me for [number]-1, so the actual jubilee edit could have been something more interesting than a boring COI warning... ;-) --bonadeacontributionstalk20:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
MES
Thanks for the bottle of pills. Its been great to see that wiki is so teeming with Fall fans, and I see Hit the North and Totally Wired now have articles. This made me splurt a mouthful of the aforementioned medicine, for a number of reasons. PS, gutted about Cassianto. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Loved your line too. It's great to see those articles, and I like the sound of a few more appearing in the near future. I can't really help, I'm afraid, not having a musical bone in my body (so just like-!) ...yes; appears to have Left the Capitol. Hopefully not for ever, but. Incidentally, for the main article,I came across something a while back tha compared his fragmented lyric style with Joyce and Eliot. Not necessarily as holding comparative place in the cultura paean, but as an modern exemplar of the style. No idea where it's from now... Cheers Ceoil. >SerialNumber54129...speculates19:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
"I will leave this fucking dump" - Dublin is our London! That said I do *love* London, but I get the Manc POV; miserable bastards, as of course are Corkonians. Can wait until Dublin burns to the ground and we inherit the earth. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you rather underestimate our recent advances in cow and sheep catapulting technology. I'll say no more, insider trading and that, but if I ws you and had a local Paddy Powers....Dublin is dust. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ha. Well, as I say, I do like London, and have family living there. Especially love Brixton Academy, the acoustics, mind was blown when the Primals did Screamadelica a few years ago, was on some dodgy yokes but it didn't matter. Yes I am an old bastard. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
AFD
Hi SN, Although not stated I did effectively withdraw the AFD - Had I been aware of the history I would've held off going to AFD and redirected myself :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Having thought on it I realised that me redirecting wasn't me withdrawing .... somehow I apparently confused myself!, Anyway thanks for spotting that I've reclosed the AFD as Speedy Keep and then undone the article redirect and then redid it .... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk23:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Cheers: Don't really matter though, the creator (I think) had a COI bigger than fucking Big Ben. Should still be sacked. Take care! Always good work with you 23:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm rather pleased with it myself. Gerda gave me a link to this page the other day and I noticed the "approved cabal for improvement" stamp of approval, so I... umm... borrowed it. You're welcome to use it or change it as you see fit. nagualdesign18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
While the pyramid contains some truth, it's not as straightforward as you guys think. For example, I've had veteran editors swear up and down with a straight face they weren't edit warring despite article history indicating otherwise. When I give them diffs and a pointer to WP:EW it's still, "that isn't edit warring!". At that point it's basically, "Look, I'm an admin, I say you're edit warring, revert again and you'll be blocked." So essentially we're at the top of the pyramid but what's the alternative? --NeilNtalk to me19:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
All joking aside, I have no problem with having admins. I think they're a good idea. The only problem is when you get the odd bad apple, and the solution to that is composting. It can be difficult to hold them accountable though. nagualdesign20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Sebastian told me earlier that "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so", which I can only assume implies a kind of 1RR. At that point it's basically, "Look, I'm an.. oh wait, you're the admin!" Even Ivan, who seems like a decent sort (even though he blocked me a few weeks ago), unblocked me today, confirming that the block was a load of bollocks, but still tried to assert that I was in the wrong for talking back! nagualdesign20:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually he said, "this is your second recent block for what amounts to "talking back" to an administrator who was trying to give you advice" (ie, top of the pyramid). nagualdesign21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::Sorry (you'll like this NeilN ;) )—I've been away creating content ;) actually, getting into a right tizz over a Henry Howard and a Robert Howard who may be the same person :o —but the thing about 3RR, nagualdesign, and it being possible to edit-war without being in breach of it, is true. If the intention has been demonstated to edit-war, then the number of reverts is academic: think of those edit wars in which two parties only revert each other say, every two days,but they do so for a period of weeks. Bizarre, I know, but it's happened. That probably what SH was trying to say. I agree with the analogy of "bent cops"—or, more expansively, in any walk of life (I'm talking generally now, rather than in the confines of today's events) there's always people who get promoted beyond their abilities, or they get promoted accordng to a criteria that subsequently changes but they don't. The latter, I think, is generally what we encounter on WP. It's rarely (if ever, surely?) malice; hardly ever incompetence; but mostly just being used to operating in a Wikipedia from another age. Rember the old saw, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there"...? That sums a lot of shit up, and not just on WP. Now, those bloody Howards.... >SerialNumber54129...speculates20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: See, Sebastian was right. Look at WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." If six editors all revert each other once then they're all edit warring. However I don't think edit warring is always a bad thing and have no hesitation in stating that I sometimes edit war to keep cruft out of Wikipedia. WP:1RR and WP:3RR are what happens if you take edit warring too far. --NeilNtalk to me20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well for what it's worth, if I recall correctly, I reverted Sebastian only once, then later I reverted his sock an IP user only once for removing an entirely different comment. You (Neil) also reverted that IP after they removed the same comment that Sebastian had removed. Does that mean you, me, Sebastian and the IP were edit warring? nagualdesign21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Yes, and I have no hesitation in stating that. Edit warring is a normal part of editing on Wikipedia. Anyone who says different is either fooling themselves or lives in Arbcom a glass tower. :-) But you can't let your edit warring become disruptive. --NeilNtalk to me21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's not forget the context here. This was Sebastian's final edit for the day before he went off to wash his socks. He's basically blaming me for an edit that you made, telling me that I should read the guidelines (this was just after he said I "have friends who help [me] avert WP:3RR"). I've only ever reverted Sebastian once. I fail to see how I was being disruptive. nagualdesign21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that part. And I'm sure you can understand that when I was discussing this with Sebastian earlier on my talk page he was very much talking about me. I only brought it up here to counterpoint your "I've had veteran editors swear up and down with a straight face they weren't edit warring despite article history indicating otherwise." Anyway, let's just get on with life, eh? The only thing left for me to say about this is thank you for being one of the good ones. nagualdesign21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Administrative action
Hello Serial Number 54129, in User_talk:Nagualdesign#Synopsis, you write "[...] any admiistrative action should have taken place". As I stated in my block message, I wasn't happy about it, but saw no other choice. I would have preferred an earlier, less severe administrative action. So I'd be very interested in which administrative action you feel would have been appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs) 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@SebastianHelm: Clearly, I feel no administrative action should have taken place then either. Even less so, hours later with an absolute paucity of justification. The point I was making was that that was the time for reprimanding ND, not this morning. Also, could you please remember to sign you post with four tildes, not five as you have just done :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates12:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Murder of Deborah Linsley for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! Grutness...wha? 00:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Regars SoWhy 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#A_RFC:_should_we_indiscriminately_move_mainspace_to_drafts. Since you commented on that AFD, it cannot be seen as canvassing, but can see if you have time. Quek157 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
) and I do respect your oppose (please don't take that as agreement with it though). --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
(don't worry, did believe that template inappropriate to an extent and would not use it) --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. >Typ932 T·C 12:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John–Eleanor Rykener 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) 13:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Night Lantern (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You may be bollocked from editing without further warning the next time you screw up on Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Regards SoWhy 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
