Jump to content

User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Re ANI

Hey. I just wanted to drop by and say, regarding our exchange earlier, since our heated argument got cut short, I do not wish for there to be any hard feelings, and I apologize if I came across as overly-hostile towards you. I have my perspective on the situation for my own reasons (I have been involved with attempting to address MP's incivility in the past), and I was admittedly frustrated by the situation, but I recognize that you and others have a different perspective for your own legitimate reasons. It was wrong of me to suggest you are unreasonable just because you disagree with me on a particular issue. You did have a point in that those standing up for the high ideal of civil conduct should not be condescending or disrespectful towards others, lest they come across as hypocritical. I do genuinely respect you as an editor, and I hope there is no bad blood. Same to you, Winged Blades of Godric. Hope all is well. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User_Talk:Zephrine

I'm very sorry, but I must revert your edit on User_Talk:Zephrine. The only reason why a permanently-blocked user is allowed to edit their user talkpage is to appeal their block. Removing their block notice and launching personal attacks on other users are not allowed reasons for editing. I really don't know why I should have to put up with personal attacks on that page, considering that I haven't been found guilty of anything, while Zephrine has been found guilty of running 50 sockpuppet accounts. AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is, AnonMoos, is that you are clearly placing that block notice as a form of WP:GRAVEDANCING: it is a template that, had the blocking admin wanted it there, they would have done it themselves. It is not your job and it is certainly not a tool to beat blocked users with. Since you object to "personal attacks" on the talk page, I have, per custom, courtesy blanked it. I suggest you direct your energies henceforth away from that page. ——SerialNumber54129 16:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bishonen: what's that page you sometimes link to—not gravedancing, but about badges of shame?—or perhaps I'm conflating the two? ——SerialNumber54129 16:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I used to talk about not marking a page with a scarlet letter. When I typed it in experimentally, I got redirected to Wikipedia:Mark of Cain. Seems relevant, though I'm pretty sure I've never read it before. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
Ah yes, it was "scarlet letter" I was thinking of. Yes, the mark of Cain = a branding, of course; that's the kind of thing I was thinking. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If they were running 50 sockpuppet accounts, then maybe they should feel a little shame. To judge from the revision history of User_talk:Zephrine, User:BilCat probably agrees. However, at this point, as long as there are no personal attacks against me on that page, I don't care too much. (If you had restored the personal attack against me a second time, my next move would have been to report you to the relevant Wikipedia Noticeboard.) AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I assure you, I very much wish you had. ——SerialNumber54129 18:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If you're insinuating that you took some kind of personal pleasure in restoring User:Zephrine's personal attack on me, then it sure seems like you need to brush up on WP:NPA and some other Wikipedia basics. I don't think I like your attitude very much, since you seem to believe that someone who ran 50 sockpuppet accounts is entitled to the most delicate tender consideration, while I (who didn't do anything wrong) am somehow the bad guy. Maybe you need to re-examine the way you do things a little... AnonMoos (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, AnonMoos, for misleading you, that's not what I intended, as I take socks and sockers very seriously. No, I merely meant that your trip to AN/I would have your time rather than mine. On a serious note, I'm sorry you were offended by Zephrine: it's not a particularly nice experience, I know, but honestly, the best advice I can give is simply not to take it personally—even socks and LTAs, being human, are usually railing against the system (one which they do not and probably never will understand) and you just happen to be there at the time. A bit like traffic warden or a ticket inspector; it doesn't make it right, but it'll perhaps help prepare you against it next time. Have a good weekend! ——SerialNumber54129 20:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I really don't care too much about ordinary quasi-random insults and little "jabs" and "digs" tossed back and forth in the course of a semi-heated discussion. However, when Zephrine said "AnonMoos is a sock", that was a factually-verifiable legally-actionable libel. It's completely different from a random insult, so that I take it very seriously -- and was not overly impressed when you chose to restore it... AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've restored the last "good version" by Zephrine. AnonMoos please don't edit the talk page again. There's no reason for you to do so. If Zephrine gets out of control, I will revoke TPA (it's now on my watchlist). Otherwise, everyone can leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Thank you for that. ——SerialNumber54129 18:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

H'mmm. I must've accidentally reviewed an article tangentially related to military history, sorry about that :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

 The WikiChevrons 
For you work on John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk and John Minsterworth you are hereby awarded these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Biography Barnstar
For you work on John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk and John Minsterworth you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Wonderful work with the Becky Sharp article; it encourages me to work on fictional character articles more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Aoba47: You're very kind, thanks very much. Yes, I've seen you at FAC quite a lot, nice one! But, with this—*ahem*—I wonder how obvious it is that I've never actually read the book! :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, and I think that the article is very well done! It was put together very quickly so I am impressed by that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
3,726 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Wars of the Roses (talk) Add sources
113 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C First Battle of St Albans (talk) Add sources
433 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Anointing of Jesus (talk) Add sources
21 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Westfield Mission Valley (talk) Add sources
115 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Kuu Kuu Harajuku (talk) Add sources
566 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: FA Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (talk) Add sources
974 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Dominican Order (talk) Cleanup
104 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Dayton's (talk) Cleanup
338 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Wimbledon, London (talk) Cleanup
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start John Stafford, 1st Earl of Wiltshire (talk) Expand
812 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Gopnik (talk) Expand
380 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Drinking in public (talk) Expand
35,177 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C URL shortening (talk) Unencyclopaedic
427 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Hank Hill (talk) Unencyclopaedic
665 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Russian cuisine (talk) Unencyclopaedic
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Honour (feudal barony) (talk) Merge
168 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Chicken and dumplings (talk) Merge
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Bott boi (talk) Merge
14 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Gonzelle White (talk) Wikify
120 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Balham (talk) Wikify
22 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Steinbach (store) (talk) Wikify
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Linus Asong (talk) Orphan
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Elizabeth Concordia (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Humphrey Neville of Brancepeth (talk) Orphan
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Inverkip railway station (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Shabaqua (talk) Stub
739 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start HTTP 301 (talk) Stub
7 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Sanandaj County (talk) Stub
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Branchton railway station (talk) Stub
42 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Magnum Concilium (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 3

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (February 2019).

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Ein Landarzt (opera)

Serial Number 54129, I thought you might not have seen that the QPQ you requested in your review has been supplied by the nominator. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus' User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, our community lost a dedicated user, Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of Abelmoschus Esculentus' scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • United States L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  • Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  • Denmark MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  • Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  • Ohio Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Loyola Jesuit College

You talked about consensus editing...but no one is talking on that page's talk page. I included information about test scores which is similar to Loyola's Sister school Regis High School and other Jesuit and non-Jesuit high schools. But two editors have edited the page since my previous edit without discussing changes on the talk page. I suspect The Banner has something to do with this because he knows more editors on Wiki than I do but if Wikipedia is a fair place where verifiable information can be sought, why will information on test scores be included in many school's pages and removed from anothers? This question has not been answered and undermines the credibility of the editors and wikipedia as a whole. Policies should be standard across the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hypernerd387: To be frank, if you have a conflict of interest, you should probably declare this on your user page and not edit the article at all: just take your suggestions on the talk page and others will make the necessary edits if they are agreed to be an improvement. ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The only conflic of interest I have is that I am Nigerian so I'm better informed about this institution than any of the other editors. I would do that, but no one is discussing on the page. I have raised an important issue that should be addressed which is test scores. This is included in other pages in some Nigerian school pages and other sister Jesuit schools around the world. I have even raised this issue here, but you have not given me a definite answer. This information is included in thousands of school pages but been edited out of this particular page even if the information is verifiable. Hypernerd387 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked Hypernerd387 for 24 hours for obvious edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Two excellent admin actions in qick succession from Ritchie333  :) cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 11:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
As I've said to Tony in the past, I don't like doing AIV boomerangs, but people do learn from them and become better editors. (Maybe). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP Biography edit

Greetings, For the edit reverted at Talk:Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, I'm confused as to how WP Military history comes alphabetically before WP Biography? There is an issue with the article assessment bot (WP1.0 bot) for flagging so it's important to move WP Bio to the top. That way the following WPs are processed correctly. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Indeed, and I've reverted myself—I completely misread what you did (thinking that you'd done the opposite of what you did do!). apologies for that—and also the tardiness of my reply—I was on mobile earlier. Thanks for the understandably-curious note! Take care, ——SerialNumber54129 19:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Football FAC

Hi, with your recent participation in a football related FAC with History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C., I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at my current nomination, Cardiff City F.C., if you have the time. Any and all comments are welcome, thanks. Kosack (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

I added a diff-link for the quote. I shouldn't bother comment on that at all. Jeblad (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jeblad: Hello! Could you be more specific? I don't recall asking you for a diff for a quote recently? Apologies if I have, my mind's a sieve sometimes. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I added it here [1], after your revert and unrevert. Jeblad (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jeblad: I see! I wondered why I didn't see any interaction  :) I'm really sorry about that—I assure you, I wasn't rolling you back because your quote lacked a diff at all—the screen jumped, I hit the rollback button accidentally and couldn't cancel it in time (in fact, there seems some doubt as to whether it's possible to). I probably should have said explained in a manual edit-summary actually. Sorry about that again! GHope you're well in all other regards. ——SerialNumber54129 17:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem! Jeblad (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Special:Diff/885984401#Civil_discussion

You brought up some interesting points on Kudpung's talk page. I just wanted to inform you that my talk page gives skewed results on feedback I've received. I generally leave up criticisms for longer and archive positive feedback quicker. Generally, negative feedback is important to take to heart and requires protracted changes on my behalf. I also don't find mainspace article creations to be an adequate measure of my contributions on Wikipedia. These totals are more important to me. Bear in mind, I edit in the userspace a lot because that is where I draft templates, articles, and everything else. Please have a second look at my contributions. I really don't want to be considered a "Wannabe Admin" by any means. Kindest Regards, ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 16:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You'll be glad to hear that that wasn't a rush to judgement—it's been generally noted for some time. And I'm not sure those totals are telling the story you think they are. Still, good luck with Kudpung. ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Unanswered Peer Review Requests

Hello Serial Number 54129, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).

History
Article Date Added
Timeline of the Ming dynasty (Peer Review) 2019-02-25
George Washington's political evolution (Peer Review) 2019-02-17
History of anarchism (Peer Review) 2019-02-07
George Camocke (Peer Review) 2018-12-22
Camp Fire (2018) (Peer Review) 2018-12-17
Kargil Review Committee (Peer Review) 2018-12-13
Taj Mahal (Peer Review) 2018-11-17

You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edit

Hello,

Please don't change the way dates of performances were written for this way is correct and don't need to be edited. Please don't delete the codes about the language of the sources were mentioned in the article. I was correcting the article and I'll later edit those parts (codes) by adding the info and also the abbreviation of the language of the sources, so it can be clear for the readers. I just didn't have time to take care of them. Those are not junks.

Thank you

Best,

Sc wikinevis (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sc wikinevis: I'm afraid your style rather conflicts with Wikipedia's own manual of style. But the important thing is that you stop repeatedly reverting other editors: contested edits—even merely stylistic ones—should be discussed on the talk page. Failure to do so is generally seen as edit-warring, which can result in sanctions. ——SerialNumber54129 18:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I see what you mean. I'm not professional in editing and I didn't know about manual of style you sent me. I checked the Date and Time part and now I understand why you were trying to edit those parts. The problem is some users do the edit with robot; therefore, I don't have any other chose except reverting them. I even wrote them but they keep doing it. The robot does change the articles depend on what it is written in their English Language version and it changes or adds some infos to their Persian Language and makes the article poor and it damages them. You probably saw that I also thank people when I see necessary edits were done by them. Anyway thank you for the information and believe me that, however I don't have much time or I might not have good knowledge and experience about coding and wikipedia rules, but I also like you am here to make the articles look better. Especially in their Persian versions for they written poorly and I care about it because I'm Persian.

Sc wikinevis (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit of help, please?

For some unknown reason, I have two "JS Wiki Browser" showing up in my Tools menu in the left margin. I also have one reFill2, and one reFill(o). How do I eliminate both of the JS Wiki Browser thingys and the reFill(o) from my user scripts or whatever it is? I think they may be causing a conflict in the Safari browser because when I open a page in edit mode, my cursor takes on a mind of its own. Usually it just sits at the top of the page until I go fetch it, and even then, I can click 10 lines down and it shows up 5 lines above. Atsme✍🏻📧 18:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Primefac (again!—apologies for using you as a packhorse!) And apologies to you Atsme, I've misled you into thinking I know anything about the software  :) I don't, I just remembered someone mentioning the sig background thing ages ago. But Primefac is helpful on these things, so if you don't mind, I'll palm you off on to her  :) ——SerialNumber54129 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm... sounds like this might be a Safari-incompatibility issue. In your common.js I'm only seeing one copy of ReFill, so unless the info page hasn't been updated there should only be one link showing. On the other hand, it could be that because there's the "reFill 2" available now, it gives both links as an option. I'd contact Zhaofeng or someone more familiar with the tool about that.
As for the JS Wiki Browser, a screenshot would help, since I don't think I know that tool. Happy to continue the conversation on my talk. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Primefac! And thank you SN54129! I'll take a screenshot and upload. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

!vote removed

I'm afraid that your !vote removed mine from the RFB today, and I don't see where it was replaced. Would you be willing to fix this? I'd appreciate it, thank you!  Spintendo  17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Sorry about that—done; odd, though, I don't recall getting an edit conflict. Anyway, we can't have DQ missing out on !votes now, can we  :) take care, ——SerialNumber54129 17:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem! Thank you for fixing it, it's much appreciated!  Spintendo  17:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Application for Triplicate Protection Breaching of Universal Law, etc.

Regarding my edit of another's user's page.1
I hereby humbly submit myself for a trouting.
My only excuse is that I saw others doing it, it looked fun and so I wanted to join in.

Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Elfabet: No problem  :) they don't seem to mind that kind of thing too much; I think that the others were adding things, rather than removing them! Have a good day though, and happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: So, interestingly, all I intended to do in my edit was add the line about aquatic lifeforms to the top template. I have no idea how the extra sentence at the bottom was removed. Thanks again for catching that, I guess. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Elfabet, no I don't mind. But no worries SN, I understand your revert and the content about accounts and IP addresses is not something I want removed. :-) It's weird how that information did get removed; often stuff like this can happen due to edit conflicts, but considering Elfabet's edit was 11 hours after my last edit (which was the one that added such information), it doesn't make much sense to me. Anyways, feel free to add it back if you'd like, it is quite funny, but do remember do update the tag count!--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(I'm quite curious to see how many tags my userpage will have by the end of this year)--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Victory~ Elfabet (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
May the "Lack of sufficient aquatic lifeform application kinetics" be victorious forever.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

RE

RE [2], I am horrible when typing on my tablet - I need to figure out how to get a spellchecker sometime.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: No problem whatsoever. Apologies for sounding like a Grammar-Kazi :) (see, it rhymes but without invoking Godwin!) I guess it's it's just a bit of a trigger word to me, my fault. Best of luck to you, ——SerialNumber54129 20:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
388 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Rang Panchami (talk) Add sources
169 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Hinduism and other religions (talk) Add sources
88 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset (talk) Add sources
83 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C National god (talk) Add sources
233 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Fountains Abbey (talk) Add sources
855 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Blood in stool (talk) Add sources
73 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Hindu art (talk) Cleanup
9 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Nicholas Brembre (talk) Cleanup
72 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Nimbarka Sampradaya (talk) Cleanup
295 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub India TV (talk) Expand
291 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Manipuri dance (talk) Expand
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Cuddington, Eddisbury (talk) Expand
613 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Gulal (talk) Unencyclopaedic
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Infltr (talk) Unencyclopaedic
534 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Hindu–Islamic relations (talk) Unencyclopaedic
119 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Feminist views on sexuality (talk) Merge
304 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Antisemitism in Europe (talk) Merge
43 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Parameshwara (God) (talk) Merge
30 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Hailes Abbey (talk) Wikify
76 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Shadripu (talk) Wikify
104 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: B Women's pornography (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Zitrr Camera (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Gordon Home (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start William Whetenhall (talk) Orphan
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Viveka (Discrimination) (talk) Stub
7 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Sundeep Jora (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Laboratoire de Phonétique et Phonologie (talk) Stub
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Gaula River (India) (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Walter of Hereford, Abbot of Vale Royal (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start John of Hoo, Abbot of Vale Royal (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


The name "Wars of the Roses" refers to the heraldic badges associated with two rival branches of the same royal house, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. Wars of the Roses came into common use in the 19th century after the publication in 1829 of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott.[1][2] Scott based the name on a scene in William Shakespeare's play Henry VI, Part 1 (Act 2, Scene 4), set in the gardens of the Temple Church, where a number of noblemen and a lawyer pick red or white roses to show their loyalty to the Lancastrian or Yorkist faction respectively.

  1. ^ Goodwin 2012, p. xix.
  2. ^ During Shakespeare's time people used the term Civil Wars: cf. e.g., the title of Samuel Daniel's work, the First Four Books of the Civil Wars

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 4

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (March 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the fourth issue of the new Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Miscellaneous


Enjoy your April Fool's, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Loveday, 1458

The article Loveday, 1458 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Loveday, 1458 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhoneography

Hi, I've reverted your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhoneography. Per WP:NACD, non-admins should only close discussions with clear outcomes, and leave more controversial calls to admins. Closing a discussion with a result contrary to the numerical majority would clearly fall under the category of "controversial." Also, while relisted discussions can be closed early, one should not close them early unless the result is clear and the AfD would not benefit from further discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Please see WP:NOTBURO (policy), WP:IAR (pillar), WP:NOTVOTE and—perhaps most importantly—explain why you think that 186 hours is less than seven days? Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I simply don't see the need to jump the gun here. The NAC guideline is very clear that this is not the type of discussion that a non-admin should close. There is no particular emergency here so I assume you would regularly close such discussions, and if you're invoking IAR all the time then you're doing it wrong. The seven-day guideline is a minimum, and anything after that is up to the closer's discretion, another reason why NAC close calls are frowned upon as current consensus does not support non-admins closing AfDs on a discretionary basis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
So; you don't read what people say, but quote guidelines at them. Right. On a lighter note, there's turkey for dinner, so no hard feelings King of Hearts; after all, WP:NODEADLINE is even less than a guideine—it's an essay—and I take that to almost as much heart as policy. ——SerialNumber54129 18:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
You know you could pretty easily solve this issue by clicking on this? :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Galobtter: It sounds a bit like encouraging a lemming to walk just a little closer to his cliff  ;) thanks, but I'd rather not swap occasional grief for continual grief! ——SerialNumber54129 18:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Information

I have noticed that you probably still have List of association football players considered the greatest of all time on your watch list (BTW I belive this article will be rerestarted in long future but in more natural way just like other this type articles on Wikipedia). I very thank you for giving next warning for User Lsw10 due his edit wars. But I also have to give information/warn that this user need be more controled (technically watched) in long future from time to time. I just want to other admins will be aware how his seldon edits generally look. Based on his edits in all projects I belive he potentially can again will make wrong edits during soccer's proment events like Cop America or World Cup specifficlly among articles reelated to records/opinions etc.. [3] - Here is his edit where he used as source Youtube video which currently get 23 views and it would shows that he even potentially can has something common with community which promote individual person on the Internet. It is odd and not right when someone generally seldon edits Wikipedia from time to time, someone do bias edits which are not later fastly corrected and this user is not watched. See how his edits look from time to time (I only give you an example, example when he uses sources/metothology about officall/unofficall doubts in biographies only if something is agree with his personal favouritism but you can find way much more his scanner). here he edits a current good article (article about Pele is GA) and give information about Guiness World Record which is not important (for sure not essential for DA) speciffically due to fact that all Wikipedia's articles about soccer statistics are focussed on RSSSF and this one source is also used in relevant article, the source shows more notable considerings about friendly matches and offical matches, what is later also essential to organisations like FIFA etc.. Meanwhile in this edit he give not true information that Chitalu according to FIFA scored more goals in calendar year than Muller and Messi. I will not giving here more examples from scanner where he denigrate other players or how discuss with other users and I will not ping other users who had edit war with him but again: I only want to admins be aware that this user make from time to time edits on Wikipedia which are problematic and it is odd that nobody has his userpage on watchlist. Again thanks for warning for this user because of I am not first user who reported him. Cheers! Dawid2009 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Serial_Number_54129 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sure other users, for instance Oshwah, will be interested in your behaviour on Bob's talk page. In the mean time, good luck. ——SerialNumber54129 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Walter actually brought it to ANI. I attempted to close but was overruled by another administrator. Who's Bob?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Ha! Acroterion reclosed it with almost the same language as my close. I can't imagine the overruling administrator overruling two of us, but life at Wikipedia is not governed by what I can imagine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, this is the Wikipedia equivalent of kids in the back seat going "Mom! He's touching me!!!!" Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Acroterion, that's not funny, you know. I almost pulled the car over last night to quell a riot in the backseat. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Bob is the common nickname for the longtime IP editor whose perfectly fine revert of vandalism started this whole mess. ansh666 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And who is regularly bullied via the "misuse of warning or blocking templates" by established editors who think there are no comebacks from rushing headlong into ABF. Imho, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 10:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Who decided to call 99 Bob?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You can blame Oshwah. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
What'd I do, now? I get blamed for everything...... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You decided to call 99 Bob. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yeah! Bob! That's Bob! You didn't know? ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oshwah. Always has to be diff'rent... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 17:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Did someone say my spurious name? Thank you, Serial Number 54129. I've many times promised Drmies a lobster and ale dinner if he ever visits my section of the world. Now you join my list of well-intentioned but ultimately meaningless promises. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Short English Chronicle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Short English Chronicle 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 Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously

First, WP:DTR. Second, warning any editor that they must leave a comment for unexplained edits is highly appropriate. I'm sorry you don't feel that communicating with and educating editors is part of the mandate of all editors. Take it to an appropriate forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I will go to ANI with this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: yes; I think you should do so. ——SerialNumber54129 22:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Doing so now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Need Help With Page You Requested For Speedy Deletion

Hello, I see you had requested a page I made for speedy deletion, however, I had created this page in the first place again because it was originally deleted falsely despite discussion members giving solid reasons why the page is valid. To emphasize this, I ensured to site many reliable sources including Billboard.com. Could you please read my response that I contested your speedy deletion, as this artist is someone whose performances I have bought tickets for and attended and he has an international presence with 100,000s of followers of his work. BobKelley (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The page has been deleted, and this, unfortunately, is not unexpected. ——SerialNumber54129 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Loveday, 1458

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Loveday, 1458 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate AFD close

I am asking you to revert your non-admin close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. You closed the discussion less than 6 hours after it opened. Furthermore, you violated the rules of WP:NACD which state "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest"--Rusf10 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Rusf10, which I have very carefully considered; Cf. WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. Although I suppose speedy keep #3 could have been worth a punt, since strictly your grounds for nominating were erroneous, albeit not egregiously so: per policy, to qualify as an attack page, it must also be unsourced or poorly sourced.
Regarding your other points, the discussion had, in fact, being open over six hours; I had not offered an opinion on that discussion prior to closing; this tells us I have only ever edited that article five times, adding eight bytes on average with each one, and so clearly do not have a vested interest. Although I suspect you know this already.
Word of advice, you'll need a much better eye for detail when you go to deletion review. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Think I didn't see this? [4] You also need to reread the definition of attack page. "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. " Regardless, this is going to DRV.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be rather heavily invested in this, Rusf10? Well, enjoy DRV, and be mindful of WP:ARBAP2 of course. ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) SN, you're actually incorrect here; an attack page is a page which exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced (my emphasis). Thus, "list of bad things people have said about insert name" could still qualify as an attack page, even if it were meticulously sourced. Rusf10, in this particular case, I wouldn't consider Veracity of statements by Donald Trump as an attack page (although that's a dreadful title), as even if it's proven that every word he's ever said is true, enough reliable sources have alleged that he's a habitual liar that the allegation is a notable topic in its own right. The reason we don't have similar articles on other politicians is that although obviously other politicians have been accused of lying, in general the alleged lies have been in relation to particular incidents and the allegation is consequently covered in the article on that incident (e.g. Iraq dossier); what's unique here is that it's the allegation that Trump is a liar that's notable, rather than an allegation that he lied about a particular incident. ‑ Iridescent 17:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice one Iridescent, I was about to ping you for a second opinion: I admit I was focussing on the biographical aspect, as indeed I thought Rusf01 was. Still, I guess it's gone elsewhere by now... ——SerialNumber54129 17:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC).
On a lighter note, it's funny to see both policy and pillar broken in one single swift edit... ——SerialNumber54129 12:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverting

Why did you revert my post on a sockpuppeter? 199.7.156.132 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

[5] for TPWs. ——SerialNumber54129 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

RX

Glad you got the article. What are you working on? Things is good here, just busy; took a vacation last week and still managed to work 40 hours—strangely relaxing, though, working while staring at a beach. How's things going with you? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Usernameunique Only a 40-hour week?! Who you think you are, Jimmy Hoffa? :p but yeah, I guess most things look better by a beach! All well here—no beaches and no 40-hour weeks either  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 12:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America1000 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

XfD's

Hi...why are you closing all of the April 1st XfD's? Also, why are you using XfD closer, which specifically adds tags to the article's talk page, which shouldn't be there as it's a joke XfD? Vermont (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the party, pal. ——SerialNumber54129 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please remove all of the tags to talk pages, like this. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Bloody good idea, Vermont, that'll teach me not to get up at a decent time. And, obvously, I'm going to ignore Hhkohh on principle, as someone who doesn't know what WP:DE actually is can't be trusted to recognise it. It's a looking glass world where the spurious creation of avoidable work for others isn't disruptive. ——SerialNumber54129 10:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, so I have striked Hhkohh (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Your closing seems disruptive. These kind of closure should leave open until tomorrow Hhkohh (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate that, Hhkohh, cheers. ——SerialNumber54129 11:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:FOOLS: Editors who revert non-harmful jokes should be assumed to be acting in good faith, and should not be sanctioned per this RfC.

Unanswered Peer Review Requests

Hello Serial Number 54129, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).

History
Article Date Added
23rd (Northumbrian) Division (Peer Review) 2019-04-01
New Albion (Peer Review) 2019-03-26
John Curtin (Peer Review) 2019-03-24
Mahathir Mohamad (Peer Review) 2019-03-20
Sarazm (Peer Review) 2019-03-07
History of anarchism (Peer Review) 2019-02-07
George Camocke (Peer Review) 2018-12-22
Kargil Review Committee (Peer Review) 2018-12-13

You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Vale Royal Abbey copyedit


The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Muza (singer) nominated for speedy deletion

Hi, firstly I'd like to thank you for contesting Muza (singer)'s nomination for speedy deletion. However, the same person seems to be very keen and has once again nominated it. I've also tried contesting in the talk page but he replied in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muza (singer).UserNumber (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Well: I contested the speedy deletion because neither A7 nor G11 applied. Releasing hit singles is a pretty blooming obvious claim of significance, while the prose is not so florid that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with policy.
Unfortunately, though, the same argument cannot be used at AfD ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the suggestion. That was very helpful. I may buy it. Kind regards, Rubpe19 14:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Staffies

Hi SN - with no intention of purposefully changing your good work, I thought it might be a little neater and easier to keep organized if I split the galleries and kept stacked dogs on top, and the more candid shots below. Of course, nothing is permanent and your suggestions are/have been very much welcome. :-) Atsme Talk 📧 20:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

Please read my edit summary and the substance of my edit before posting a notice on my page accusing me of not including one, and then suggesting I "removed" sourced material. I did not; I revised material to include an in-text attribution, per the WP:LABEL and WP:BLP guidelines. Don't remove the in-text attribution again. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, your edit war of course. At least you are engaging on the talk page; it's a qualitative advance. ——SerialNumber54129 20:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Cross-Strait relations

@Jimfbleak: Have a look at the history, JFB; fancy applying some temp. semi-protection?! It's getting a bit silly  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks JfB, apologies for picking on you—you were most recent on my watchlist  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem, semi-p for a month to start with, third time it's been protected. I haven't reviewed the two pending edits though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to let you know, I have a giant smile on my face! Thanks for being understanding Rockstonetalk to me! 16:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all Rockstone35, I didn't think you were being disruptive, just enthusiatic  :) as I said elsewhere, I wondered why you wanted that list—it seemed rather, you know, morbid! :D have a good weekend, ——SerialNumber54129 18:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely 🤣

🤣 Lourdes 03:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely what...? ——SerialNumber54129 18:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
"Hilarious" hero :) The Burger King stuff got me rolling Lourdes 02:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Paulo Victor Costa Soares

Hi SN. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulo Victor Costa Soares. With 5 !keep votes and 5 !delete votes in a classic meets-the-SNG-but-not-GNG discussion, in which only one potentially-SIGCOV source was posted (by me, saying it wasn't significant enough), I was surprised you found consensus for keep, as opposed to no consensus (assuming you're not discounting arguments from either side, and noting there was one potential SPA on either side). Would you mind elaborating your thinking, or potentially reconsidering the close? Thank you. Leviv ich 16:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, obviously because one delete votes was weak, and of course yours is addressed policy. Happy days. ——SerialNumber54129 17:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
LOL, well, I asked for an explanation, and that does explain it, so thank you for that, and for reconsidering. :-) Leviv ich 17:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Socky mcSock

Tfue is apparently a YouTuber so I'm not putting much stock in the name but they did mention this and I found this but I'm seriously wondering which LTA this is and how long it'll take til they're finally blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also sorry I accidentally rolled you back! Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem  :) I know next to nothing of YouTubers I'm afraid so I'm sure you're right! But yes, I'm looking forward to the dénouement too :D ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Ah well...perhaps we'll never know  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Ahh! So, I am in your what list!! Anyway Tfue is my favourite Steamer and I am not associated with Tfue123 NotTfue123 (Talk) 12:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

your comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#WP:WEAK

Part of "not bludgeoning the process" would be for you to stop bringing up arguments that do not apply. I agree that the personal comments do not belong and would appreciate it if you would stop bringing them up. They add zero value to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: perhaps you'd mind not bludgeoning the discussion then. The solution, Watson, is a simple one. ——SerialNumber54129 22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
You're the one who keeps bringing it up, the issue was done multiple comments ago. I'll stop when you let me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Round objects. Replies by me: 2. Replies by you: 6. Simples. You seem raher invested in something that's not particularly important in the great scheme of things; suggest going for a walk. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Associations

Re: our recent chat about associations, see my note at the top of Talk:Marius de Vries. Not heard from him for a few years, though, and neither has the college. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course, yes Sitush, nice one,...ranging, I see, from Prestwich High St to Hollywood Boulevard  :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I still see Guy Black and always get a Cats Protection League (!) Xmas card off him (adorned with neither ermine nor cat fur). However, one should not name-drop, as HM The Queen said to me last week. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, that was a good year for Peterhouse history - me and GVB got double-firsts, which is pretty good going from an annual intake of ca 70 students, of which perhaps 10-12 were historians. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Glad it was that Lord Black and not the less-salubrious one  ;) Class of '85, I see. An excellent vintage! ——SerialNumber54129 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I have a couple of embarrassing photos stashed away somewhere, no fear! Probably got more of Andrew Roberts (historian), whom I could not and still cannot stand. (Roberts was not at my college but always round there, plotting his way to the top of the Tory Association & the C'bridge Union). A surprising number of my contemporaries have articles here - Michael Axworthy is another. I've let the side down. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rfa

I am tired of asking you this question. Lourdes 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted user page

Thanks to all. Qwirkle (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by ANI

Re JB: Oppose as effectively a content dispute are you insane? Did you not read up on the history??? Very weak judgement. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a troll now Serial ? Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Look: we don't need to have a row. Apologies for my edit-summary; no you're not. But—if you don't mind me giving an alternate example—if I came to your talk and said something like "I think you should lay off the drink, your argument's so crap", or somesuch (!!!) you'd (rightly) drag me to ANI for casting aspersions—or, possibly?—revert as trolling  :) but we've always got on well, we've collaborated well, and—as I have from Johnbod, as I said—you're one of a Gang of Four Eight or so who has taught me everything I have learned about writing decent content. I don't want that to change; especially over what is frankly political. But, Ceoil, from my point of view, I temporarily lose it when people question my sanity—know what I mean? Hence the edit summary. Take care. ——SerialNumber54129 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Not happy, but message and intended wounding received. I am disappointed and maybe we avoid each other from here, dandy and fine by me; some how I'll carry on I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll live. Christallfuckingmightywhydopeoplehavetogetsobloodyemotionallyinvested... Best of luck all all the same. ——SerialNumber54129 22:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Having read your responses earlier and considered your cheap and loaded "argument's so crap" rational, my feeling is that you can go fuck yourself. END. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
WELL Ceoil, for someone who thought it best that maybe we avoid each other from here, it's great to have you back less than three hours later. If you didn't understand that my line about your argument was a hypothetical, a mirror-reflection of your "are you insane" attack—which was not "intended wounding", I suppose?—then there's very little to be done. And, as for anyone fucking oneself; no, it's calling people "cowardly prick", "fucker", "cowardly admin swarm type prick", etc., that tends to do that. All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Lol, well that's a new one. I don't even know this guy. 🤷 I'll follow up on his talk page for now, this should be interesting. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It's getting bizarre. Still, no punitive action required I hope Swarm; I'm watching Thunderball and that's enough bizarre for one night. ——SerialNumber54129 00:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's the explanation I got: [6][7][8][9][10] Lol. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Could be worse I suppose. One of my closest friends once told me that "all I see when I look at you is a sphere". I mean, to be fair, I had just informed them that "you are about as dense as a neutron star". My point is... refer to the first five words of the second sentence. Precisely. Don't burn bridges over words. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
What second sentence is that, Mr rnddude? ——SerialNumber54129 12:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The second sentence of my comment: "One of my closest friends", to be specific. The point is that we're still friends despite having had some sour words for each other in the heat of the moment. That the complete fallout here needn't have happened. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Mmmm. It's an almost inevitable byproduct of extending an ANI discussion to a user page, I suspect. It's only happened occasionally before, but generally results in some class of meltdown, with or without blocks. I think it's because comments that would only read as veiled attacks in the noticeboard vacuum where everyone's as bad each other are harshly illuminated on a quiet talk page. Shame though. ——SerialNumber54129 13:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It's an almost inevitable byproduct of extending an ANI discussion to a user page - That's very true. I can think of only two instances where an AN/I discussion spilling over to my talk page didn't result in more problems. The last time a spillover happened, it was a particularly unpleasant moment. I do hope that I don't have a repeat of that. It is a shame though, I agree. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely! In other news, see? ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Alfred Lennon

My actions can be considered good faith because if someone comes to an article and deletes it without saying why or without using the talk page to express why it should be deleted I think you're the one who acted in bad faith, you didn't give no noticed, nothing, just went there and delete it so that's why I thought it was an act of vandalism. User:Kindoom 08:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kindoom: OK, I'll tell Ritchie333 to stop vandalising too; I don't know what Wikipedia admins think they're doing these days... ——SerialNumber54129 14:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: No worries, I think we can put John Lennon's father picture in his page then. What do you think? KindoomKindoomKindoom 04:51, 14 April 2019(UTC)

Piss off

Now, you miserable little swine. Tony (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Tony... this isn't helpful. In fact, you're behaving in much the same manner towards others that got you so upset when it was applied to you. There isn't any need for the lashing out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Paul Singer is not a philanthropist

Killing children in west africa with Cholera is not my idea of a philanthropist, but if you want to support that, thats on you. https://issuu.com/coldtype/docs/0814.coldtype88.aug2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpjeepy (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fpjeepy: I appreciate you have strong feelings on the matter, and caring about such issues obviously does you credit—but please can you stop saying the things you have been? Please read our policy regarding living people: it has legal implications because of the dangers of libel, and I rather think your recent edits have drifted closer to that line than you may have intended. I have also removed your talk page post for the same reason: those are massive claims to make about someone, and, while we are an encyclopaedia and wish to be comprehensive in our coverage, exceptional claims require exceptional sources—and you have made done former yet not the latter. ——SerialNumber54129 19:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
As much as I would like the world to know what this man has done... I'm not even asking for that. All that I'm asking is that he not be called a philanthropist. I shouldn't have to prove that he killed people for that to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpjeepy (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fpjeepy: that's the point. You haven't. Nor has anyone else. And until you or they do, and then that's picked up by reliable sources and published, we don't suggest it. ——SerialNumber54129 19:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Jim and Mary McCartney

This article is designated a GA. How is the merging of such an article a benefit to Wikipedia users? The parents, of one of the key members of the greatest rock 'n' roll band in history, are of interest to music scholars and fans. What's next, the Alfred Lennon article (also designated a "GA" Wikipedia rating)? Engines On (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Engines On:, indeed, I'll initiate the GARs shortly. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I started the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim and Mary McCartney (2nd nomination), which closed recently as "no consensus". That means the community is undecided whether the article should be kept, and it seems to be that a merge (which was not an option anyone asked for if I recall correctly) would actually be a reasonable compromise. Incidentally, I reckon if you asked a group of typical twentysomethings whether the Beatles or The White Stripes were the greatest rock 'n' roll band ever, you'd get more of them siding with Jack and Meg these days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Methinks if you asked a group of 20somethings whether The Beatles or The White Stripes were the greatest rock 'n' roll band ever, they wouldn't have heard of either :-P The Stripes were already done ten years ago. Leviv ich 21:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"What's next, the Alfred Lennon article (also designated a "GA" Wikipedia rating)?" Ah yes, good point. Fixed ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
SN, we already had a GAR for Jim and Mary, which it passed, then we had an AfD, and it was kept (albeit by default), and now we're onto a Merge request.... I've taken the thing off my watchlist as I'm clearly in a minority in thinking family members deserve separate articles if they pass GNG. Wikipedia is a very different place now from when andreasegde wrote them - guess I'm stuck in the past :)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Tihs is darkness, Pawnkingthree; you know I respect you. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joan of Leeds

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joan of Leeds you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nominations

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Loveday, 1458 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/A Short English Chronicle at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Outlines of Westminster and Vale Royal Abbies.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Outlines of Westminster and Vale Royal Abbies.png. 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) 00:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
333 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Candid photography (talk) Add sources
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Ray B. Browne (talk) Add sources
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Navy Children School, Delhi (talk) Add sources
32 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Darfur Peace Agreement (talk) Add sources
22 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start John Cheyne, Baron Cheyne (talk) Add sources
825 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Anne Neville (talk) Add sources
378 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Battle of Chamkaur (1704) (talk) Cleanup
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Chris Salewicz (talk) Cleanup
24 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Johan Söderqvist (talk) Cleanup
718 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season (talk) Expand
69 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Islam in Lebanon (talk) Expand
16 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Liberal Democrats (Sudan) (talk) Expand
714 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Advance-fee scam (talk) Unencyclopaedic
2,387 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Slavery (talk) Unencyclopaedic
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Banks Violette (talk) Unencyclopaedic
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Harrow School bombing (talk) Merge
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Walton's Restaurant bombing (talk) Merge
24,394 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Facebook (talk) Merge
558 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Tiocfaidh ár lá (talk) Wikify
33 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C CIA activities in Sudan (talk) Wikify
51 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Antisemitism in Sweden (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Constitution (1829 steamboat) (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Robert Merwald (talk) Orphan
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Lin Foxhall (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Westwood Priory (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Ian McBride (talk) Stub
24 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Liam Quinn (talk) Stub
130 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon (talk) Stub
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Flight 2000 (pinball) (talk) Stub
780 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Aontú (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a test

@Mr rnddude: English cuisine, yeah, right. You'll be glad to hear that they taste as good as they look...

Hi my edict was not a test. GenerationCurrent2015 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@GenerationCurrent2015: Ah, you mean you deliberately removed—diff, diff—a massive chunk of well-sourced (BBC, Independent, Guardian) material? On what grounds? That you don't like it being there, perhaps? ——SerialNumber54129 09:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Mmm, are you sure they were trying to remove it instead of just move it as they did with this? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I doubt it, although on reflection I've struck a portion of my reply here which leaned towards (read=a totally egregious) lack of good faith—apologies. ——SerialNumber54129 09:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I was moving them to a better place. GenerationCurrent2015 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@GenerationCurrent2015: Ah, of course. Unfortunately edit-summaries such as "TOM TOM" (diff, diff) are—shall we say misleading?—as to your intentions. But while you're working on that article, can you add this current news [11], [12]...?  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, see now there's your problem. He should have been handing out free fish and chips instead. None of this American burger king interference in... I was going to say domestic affairs but it's more pan-European affairs, innit doe bruv? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Vale Royal Abbey

Hi, as requested on User talk:Iridescent, I hope to be able to get out to Vale Royal Abbey soon (possibly today) to get some photos for you. But what exactly do you want? Is it the nun's grave, or the abbey itself? Bazonka (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bazonka: that sounds fantastic news, many thanks! I think, if you can, just the nun's grave should be ok—the article already has enough pictures of the post-dissolution house, and all that's left inside is a door arch and some graffiti. Now; I don't know if people are allowed to go in and take photos—I haven't heard back from them myself yet. If you can get a snap of the medieval graffiti that would be even better, but, failing that, the grave would be most original. Either way, don't put yourself out! How's the weather looking? ——SerialNumber54129 08:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The weather is glorious, which means that the golfers will be out in force. It looks like the grave is in the middle of the course, so there's a chance I won't be able to get to it, but I'll do my best. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course, forgot about the bloody golf club. And it's a bank holiday. Still, as long as you find the 19th hole, Bazonka  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Sadly they wouldn't let an oik like me into the bar, but at least I was able to take some photos. I hope they're what you wanted. Here they are Bazonka (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bazonka: glad you managed to dodge the golf balls at least! They're all great, many thanks! In fact, I think I'll cram a couple in, they're too good to waste! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 09:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert again!

I have given same information that was there in citation then why?? Joshi punekar (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Now really I want clarification. Joshi punekar (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In Goa, the Saraswats were considered inferior in the caste hierarchy by the Chitpavan Brahmins. The Chitpavans, who are vegetarians looked upon the Saraswats as a polluted sub-caste because of their meat eating habits.[1]

References

  1. ^ Arun Sinha. Goa Indica: A Critical Portrait of Postcolonial Goa. Bibliophile South Asia. p. 50. Retrieved 1 January 2002.

Show me where it has been mentioned? Joshi punekar (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Can we have a second opinion; I am bogged down in piscine-related mania again... ——SerialNumber54129 18:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have given citation explanation,may I know on what basis you reverted ? Joshi punekar (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 In the whole citation can you show me those wordings? Joshi punekar (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has been pointed out by Fylindfotberserk that much of what you state is sourced is either original research or your own synthesis of the sources. And why all the bizarre formatting here? ——SerialNumber54129 18:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@SN:- Sigh. Reverted one of his edits and looking at others. Check EdJ's t/p. ∯WBGconverse 18:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 I am not talking about previous edit disputes at all,I am talking only about current edits (By mrRAJA ) where Citation is telling something and written something as per his wish and POV. Joshi punekar (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 I have given what citation is telling and the explained in summary even though you have reverted.Should I consider it as one sided move? Joshi punekar (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serial_Number_54129/Archive_19&oldid=1143297602"