User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Dokkyo University

Dear Serial Number 54129,

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.

Many thanks from Germany, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Justin Castreau

• re.

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)

@The Anome: teamwork  :) slow but sure, wins the race eh. Thanks for the note (I'd totally forgotten!). Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Anome, do their contribs match any of this editors? It's sa sock, and admittedly not an uncommon kind of target for a user with a particular world view; but just wondering if it's the same bod come back. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

PR for Fawad Khan

@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:

Pakistan Today (7), The Express Tribune (40), Firstpost (3), Daily Pakistan (2), The Quint (1), The Indian Express (13), Mid Day (1), Times of India (12), iDiva (1), Daily News and Analysis (3), Forbes India (1), Deccan Chronicle (3), Aaj News (2), DAWN Images (1), Gulf News (1), Dawn (23), Samaa TV (1), NDTV (6), ARY News (5), Bollywood Hungama (2), The Economic Times (1), The News International (5), Daily Times (3), The Hindu (1), Zee News (3), The Times of India (1), The National (1), Hindustan Times (3), IBT India (6), India TV (2), Rediff.com (1), Khaleej Times (1), Vogue India (1), Dunya News (2), News18 India (2), DAWN Images (1), SOS Children's Villages (1), Business Recorder (3), The Nation (1), Geo News (1), PTV Global (1), India Times (1), Huffington Post India (1), ARY Digital (1), Filmfare (1)

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 room} 13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Some old dead white dudes squabbling

In my meandering path I ran across an article…

• Irish, Bradley J. (2013). "Writing Woodstock: The Prehistory of Richard II and Shakespeare's Dramatic Method". Renaissance Drama. 41 (1/2). The University of Chicago Press: 131–149. doi:10.1086/673905. ISSN 0486-3739. JSTOR 10.1086/673905 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

…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)

@Xover: Redlink received and understood  :) Thanks very much for the article link—it seems to be just the kind of thing I'm looking for, and of course the references may provide further gems. Much appreciated, cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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…
46		Government of National Defense (talk)	Add sources
59		Paul Deschanel (talk)	Add sources
14		Jean Hepburn (talk)	Add sources
126		Neelam Valley District (talk)	Add sources
66		Alexandrian school (talk)	Add sources
182		Happy Valley set (talk)	Add sources
20		Patriot Act, Title X (talk)	Cleanup
318		Rugby School (talk)	Cleanup
5		The Providence Effect (talk)	Cleanup
4		Roselyne Sibille (talk)	Expand
126		Comair (talk)	Expand
177		Adam Gemili (talk)	Expand
66		Media of France (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
52		Social class in France (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
584		Bombay riots (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
23		Operation Sarp Vinash (talk)	Merge
59		Azad Kashmir Regiment (talk)	Merge
16		Potty parity (talk)	Merge
209		Stoke Newington (talk)	Wikify
2		Dorta Jagić (talk)	Wikify
286		Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (talk)	Wikify
4		Rose Marasco (talk)	Orphan
3		Siri Kaur (talk)	Orphan
3		La Memoria De Nuestra Tierra (Calif. 1996) (talk)	Orphan
55		Right to Financial Privacy Act (talk)	Stub
15		Archibald Acheson, 4th Earl of Gosford (talk)	Stub
44		Banking in France (talk)	Stub
20		Humanitarian Law Project (talk)	Stub
83		Money Laundering Control Act (talk)	Stub
61		Telecommunications in France (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) 23:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Murder of Deborah Linsley

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)

Your GA nomination of Murder of Deborah Linsley

The article Murder of Deborah Linsley 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: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)

Thanks!

Thank you for the barnstar! Grutness...wha? 00:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Pace

Excellent use thereof. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's usually a tosser-alert I think, but-  ;) cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It can be, for sure, but still. *clinky glass* Kafka Liz (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kafka Liz: Any chance—my belated idea, my abscondment—that you could remind Ceoil, that if his damp records the past; then we have the biggest library yet. The Biggest Library Yet. Hup hup! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We could make The Wiki Great Again, ooo rah! Kafka Liz (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

removal of speedy on Angshuman Kar

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 Blades^Godric 13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have already said that the first decline was either a mis-click or a script-error.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:09, 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 Blades^Godric 14:09, 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)
  • Also, Diannaa just finished the cleanup with revdel, so should be good moving forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 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^{...speculates} 14:54, 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^{...speculates} 16:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking per the rules, G5 would be an invalid criterion.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed; master wasn't blocked when the page was created. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 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^{...speculates} 17:27, 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^{...speculates} 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Did you ever get anywhere with D'Umfraville? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:06, 3 July 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 remember Brianboulton, you put a helluva lot of work into the Wilkinson article; isn't it going "any further" as it were? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:57, 4 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)

Draft:BenHolidays.com

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)

Cheers, PreChaos...was this meant for me though?—I can't find any mention of it or the user in my contribs  :) and surely a draft can't be U5'd in any case? I'm easilly confused on a Sunday morning! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

No, I appreciate it anyway; Twilight Zone, yeah—Thanks, PMC, have a good (remainder of a) weekend. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, you too! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Australian photojournalists

I am not here very often and I just saw the message about a deletion discussion on this list that I created. I see that you were the one who decided that it should not be deleted so I wanted to reach out to you and see if I can still voice my opinion in the discussion or is it too late? The page was not deleted, but I still thought it may be good to share my reasoning. Any advice you have would be appreciated. --RTotzke (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@RTotzke: Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. That particular discussion (or rather, that form of discussion), now closed, would only be reopened by another deletion nimination, and I don't suppose that's what you want! ;) I'd be glad to hear your reasoning myself; but, the best page to place it—and yes, you should do so—is on the talk page of the article. Perhaps head it, "Thoughts on notability" or something; but that way, t will be there for anyone to see if ever there is another nomination. Incidentally, any more sources discussing Australian photojournalists as a group and refering to the individuals you list would be Billy's bonus. Hope this helps—have a good week, wheresoever ye may be! Take care, ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Anjneytubesindia

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^{...speculates} 09:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Guy Burgess

I've opened a peer review for Burgess, and would greatly value any comment you care to make there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk/archive1

If I'm lucky enough to count any experienced content creators amongst my talk-page watchers, they may wish to comment / moan at th3 above; all suggestions welcome—and considered. Except Iridescent who is by now sick to the back teeth of the guy :) I have spammed so many other blooming talk pages that I realised I had very rudely ignoted my own... ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Berlin Philharmonic Ranking/Lead

Your recent edit is being discussed on the talk page. Please chime in if you have the inclination. Lexlex (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ezidkhan

Take a look at my talk page (the bottom) and my comments at User talk:Sandstein. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 20 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^{...speculates} 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein deleted it as a recreation, 4 minutes later it was back. With yet another source not mentioning the subject. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now create protected at least...I wonder if it will reappear under some other exotic name. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Request: Summary report of acceptances, tank-automotive materiel, 1940-1945" (book)

Thank you for responding to my media request !
But your answer was redacted for some reason...
Would you e-mail me what it originally said ?

Regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note GeeTeeBee; If you email me, I'll send you the pdf (the wiki email doesn't allow attachments unfortunately), which is about 50 pages long. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, done ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

→ in re: User talk:Kizznyc#March 2018 2
Will do that. Kizznyc (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Wikipedia:Sandbox

Hello Serial Number 54129, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 clearly states that "this criterion applies neither to sandboxes or to pages in the user namespace": So why did you tag the page then? If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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 room} 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what happens when you import all my scripts, not just the bits you need. My configuration is for Monobook skin and won't work for other skins Regars SoWhy 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I know. I did it deliberately to annoy you :p —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume that's because he copied my configuration and that includes a link to my decline message at User:SoWhy/CSDH Template. Regards SoWhy 13:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would make sense. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

AFC Reviews

Thanks for removing the AFC review posting from my talk page earlier. Looks like it's caused by AFC rather than Twinkle. I've raised the issue at WT:AFC#AFC & CSD - unplanned behaviour? in case you're interested. Thanks again, Cabayi (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't bother following up to that link, it is a TW issue (or at the very least a GIGO issue). Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Ah! Thank you​​, interesting stuff; yes I'll look in and see what the Bods are up to. I wondered why CSDs in userspace automatically submits them as AfC drafts, when CSDs elsewhere don't. Or something like that. Anyway: thanks for the information, I'll follow it with interest. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism versus just disruptive editing

Hello. An edit such as this is blatant vandalism, not just disruptive editing, and should result in a user warning for vandalism, which even though the level-3 warning for vandalism first talks about "disruptive editing" then specifies that it is vandalism, while the level-3 warning for disruptive editing talks about content disputes and points the user to dispute resolution. And changing "Kingdom of Sweden" to "Islamic Emirate of Sweden", and calling it an "Islamic country" and not a "Scandinavian country", is definitely not a content dispute. Which I felt a need to point out to you since you reverted my addition of a uw-v3-warning on the user's talk page... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are comprehensively wrong; but you'l know that by now, having just read my note to you in which I pretty much answered everthing you just said before you even said it. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Just FYI, but your ping to me from your page failed: please see the Echo page at Meta for more information. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:53, 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 ^talk 15:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you know that. Happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Hot Award

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)

@K.e.coffman:—apologies for the (very!) belated reply, I left late on Friday. Re. the Hot Sexy close, indeed; in fact your nomination was the only policy-based argument presented, and so actually strengthens the my closing argument  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Interesting decision. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Urghh :) What have I mucked up now Primefac? You mean, it shouldn't have it's own section header? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:51, 16 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)

I seeee ​what you mean; although it shouldn't get archived because it's merely referencing a side-splitting "joke" of my own (re. current article work). Although I don't think it deserves perpetuity, either, so  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Sources

• Blud, V. (2017). The Unspeakable, Gender and Sexuality in Medieval Literature, 1000-1400. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-84384-468-6. {{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) talk 03:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: On account of the (now gone) nasty image (AKA Goya's), my user page had been taken to (a now deleted) MfD. This is somewhat in the spirit of a memento mori. Thanks for the message, as ever! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

OK Tanks

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)

Lima Oliveira sá, you should check out the Article wizard and the Tutorial, which will give you a lot of information about writing an article. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

(edit conflict) @Lima Oliveira sá: Didn't you say it had already been created somewhere? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes, the big problem is that the name was blocked because vandalos made several attempts, could you unlock please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Oliveira sá (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

It hits an entry on the global title blacklist: .*israel.*luca.*gois.* <antispoof>, so previous attempts were probably not on enwiki. Appears to have been added by Vituzzu in February this year, due to long-term spam problems. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@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 Góis here...but I can't see where it's been previously created or deleted anywhere (I guess there's lots of spelling variants)... or, of course, by whom, if you get my drift... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

and how can we solve this problem? , because the same has a very strong notoriety and great references in google--Lima Oliveira sá (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Whoops?

Was this a perfect example of exactly what they want to prevent? Primefac (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Almost a little too perfect... GMG^talk 14:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I wasn't testing it as such—it just occured to me that I was sure I do have alerts for Rollback—err, and by the time I looked, it was too late! D'OH. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

*It turns out, of course I don't—but what I do have is some script or prefernce setting on which brings up a dialogue box for adding an edit summary to the rollback. So long since I actually read it that I couldn't remember waht it did! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

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. GMG^talk 15:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

• @GoldenRing: Here. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Isima Odeh

Hi I noticed you made an edit on the Isima Odeh article and made one a second after you. I didn't know you were making an edit on the page and I had no intention of edit warring. Anyway I was adding citation to the portion of the article you marked as 'unsourced' and I'll like to go on. Aghachi7 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I see you've now added a source. It seems to be an interview, so per WP:INTERVIEW it may be a WP:SPS, which is less than suitable for a WP:BLP. It also smacks somewhat of WP:PROMO. IMHO of course. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Walled garden...

Any ideas about the broader modus-operandi as to the articles related with Meher Baba? Allmost, all the articles/parts are sourced exclusively from Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Meher Baba, Bhau Kalchuri.I am inclined to remove all frivolous mentions like this, from the articles which are in the template.And, what d'ya think of Seven Names of God Prayer? As a side-note, User:Sharnak had definitely got some vested interests with MeherBaba stuff....Also, two more‎ AfDs are up on roughly the same gounds. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Standing by, Gold Leader...you know, it reminds me of this thing from last year we (and, of course, not forgetting Bonadea) were involved in. I'm not saying these are the same individuals as then (necessarilly), but perhaps we should take a similar approach..."Tear down the wall." —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Present! No time to look at this right now (the grading is upon me, with a plague of essays) but I am always interested in wall-tearing. --bonadea contributions talk 13:59, 8 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 room} 14:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, exciting! Welcome to the dark side - we have biscuits! --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 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 Blades^Godric 14:30, 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........

  Anyways, I've dispatched numerous articles to AfD (check this list) and will concentrate a bit more on the creators:) And, ideas about the notability of Sufism Reoriented and God in a Pill? would be much appreciated.I'm feeling way too dis-inclined to run a search and all..... Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to call in a check user if you find anything suspicious connecting me to User:Dazedbytheebll (previously Sharnak). Hoverfish Talk 10:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: Has anyone suggested such a thing? On edit: Yes, I see WBoG does rather imply it above. Ah well; either he will file an SPI or you will at ANI  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Understatement of the Year™

If there was an award for this, I think you'd take it with Special:Diff/839278957. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely Primefac; I think you'll understand me when I say that the reason that is so understated is because it is—how can I put it—the polar opposite of what I was gonna say  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: They still don't get it. I don't think I can imagine a scenario in which it is appropriate to compare someone's RfA to the sinking of the Lusitania (!!!) but maybe that's just me. Unbelievable. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

More like the sinking of KMS Bismark, last I looked, with TonyBallioni as Adm. Tovey.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Exton

Ha! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Already on the list. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 9 January 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^{...speculates} 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't Wilde, given that he was born 20 years after Colton's death and Colton undoubtedly said it; the only thing at issue is whether Colton invented the phrase or pinched it from André Dacier. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah... didn't Wilde add a bit about ...."that X can pay to greatness." Where X = a 19C. synonym for dumbass. Mind you, I seem to remember that OW was accused of plagarising other peoples' quotes too? Maybe that's what got me. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

OW undoubtedly plagiarised his quotes, and was renowned for it even during his lifetime. (Whistler pricked this bubble of Wilde very neatly and epigrammatically at a Paris salon last season presided over by a well known and popular lady. Whistler had been notably witty during the evening and finally made a bon mot more than usually pointed and happy that convulsed his listeners. Wilde, who was present, approved Mr. Whistler’s brightness, and wondered why he had not thought of the witticism himself. ‘You will,’ promptly replied Whistler, ‘you will.’ This lightning comment on Mr. Wilde’s wonderful ability to think of other people’s bright things and to repeat them as his own had, you may imagine, an immediate and most discomforting effect on Mr. Wilde. J. M’Neill Whistler: The London Artist Coming to America to Lecture, The Sunday Herald, Boston MA, 24 Jan 1886, p.14.) ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for that, that must be what I was thinking of... acc. GoodReads, Oscar's was "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness." I wonder if that was almost an admission... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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|Talk 23:01, 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^{...speculates} 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries SN. Thanks for settling my conscious. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI on XTools

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 — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:23, 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^{...speculates} 18:48, 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^{...speculates} 15:23, 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^{...speculates} 16:27, 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)

Your user page illustration...

...exemplifies perfectly, your removal of a discussion which dared to challenge the anti-infobox mania. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 18 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 Blades^Godric 14:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Make that "yours", which is the only truthful part of your comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Mate. This is the place for classic come-backs. Classic come-backs alone. You know, like The Irons winning the cup; Mark E Smith getting a fourth wife; Bill Clinton receiving dry-cleaning Customer of the Year; Jimmy Wales being allowed to block people on Wikipedia. OK, that last one's probably stretching it. But that there—yours, just there—really, just doesn't qualify. No way. Playground stuff! A come-back? As much chance as Gary Glitter. A classic? An Austin Allegro would have more chance. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If Winged's comments qualify as "classic" comebacks, then the standard has dropped significantly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, Baseball Bugs, I prefer to keep a monopoly on the classics for myself  ;) so there's no real quality control going on! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So far, it's working. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Touché! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Exton

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)

Ooops—sorry—forgot all about this! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

For publicly saying you think I'm civil despite charges of censorship and hypocrisy ;) We hope (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer reviews generally and particularly

@Iridescent: as the most comprehensive commentator on a previous PR, but open to all my TPS with experience of these things. (So probably about three then!)

Iridescent, you may remember that some time ago you were kind enough to look at the peer review I opened (here). As a result of some of your suggestions (particularly re. Chaucer, background and aftermath), I discovered much more material which substantially (~50%) increased (hopefully in an improvement) the article. To which end, I transferred work to my sandbox. Now, the point is, is that that's still unfinished (the aftermath is complicated), and I think I've bitten off more than I could chew for what may have ended up as a first FAC.

So the question is—whether it would be ethical or etiquette to ask for another PR of a different article (I was thinking maybe this chap?), even though the last one didn't actually "go" anywhere. Do you see what I mean? Basically—in light of being a FAV—would it be OK to start over which something a little more manageable in size? Any advice or suggestions would be most welcome from anybody on this. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally see any issue with it. FAC has rules against serial nominations to stop people flinging multiple articles at it to see what sticks, but PR is a purely voluntary process and if anyone isn't interested in the topic they'll just ignore it. If you're concerned about developing a reputation for spamming, just round up assorted people who you feel are likely to have something useful to say and ask them to comment. Giano, Ealdgyth, Eric Corbett, Brianboulton and SlimVirgin are a few who spring to mind who might have something useful to say. (All {{noping}}ed at this stage, in case you don't want to draw attention to it until you're ready.) ‑ Iridescent 11:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for that Iridescent. No reason for secrecy, in fact the more the merrier I think  :) It'll be a learning curve for me, so every little helps as some might say. My concern was more that editors might be put off going to the trouble of commenting at the PR if their previous efforts seemed to have been wasted or ignored; i.e., a feeling that there's no point in commenting as "it'll just end up in a sandnbox anyway"? Thanks again, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Purely in my personal opinion, I think peer review as currently constituted is largely a dead horse. A process like that has a lot of value for new-ish editors asking "did I do this right and how can I do it better?" questions, but at FA level I find it easier to just post "hey, I just wrote an article on Droxford railway station, what do you think of it?" on the talkpages of people who I know are likely to take an interest. While Wikipedia has thousands of editors, in any given field the number of people is usually small enough that you can track them all down fairly easily. ‑ Iridescent 13:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this to this is rather inspirational :) well, I think I'll open a pr for now and bear that in mind for the future...I'll have to find a few medievalists I guess; shame that this is the state of the (most) relevant wikiproject. I'll do that dyk now. Thanks again, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

People don't tend to watch the small subprojects. To be honest, in this case a comment on User talk:Ealdgyth will be just as effective a notification as spamming every project, since anyone with any involvement in medieval England is either going to have worked with her or to have been in an argument with her, and in either case will have her talk page watchlisted. ‑ Iridescent 14:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't THINK I've had that many arguments with people over medieval English topics... certainly not as much as rumbles through the horse stuff (see Skowronek for an example...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you ever do fancy having an argument over sh*t that happened 500+ years ago, may I direct you to our Richard III of England, battered repeatedly between Welsh nationalists and Ricardian loyalists as it is  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:08, 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 - Talk 14:46, 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.) ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree that Ealdgyth's opinions on any medieval article are worth their weight in gold. (Marks, presumably...) It'll be an honour and a pleasure; We almost collaborated before, and she's been kind enough to compliment me on a previous thing, so hopefully it won't be too painful or hardwork  :) thanks for all your advice Iridescent. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it soonish. Hoping to go see Black Panther tonight so... (all depends on if the hubby doesn't get bogged down at work...) Heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rush Ealdgyth :) as Alex Shih has carefully established!, and I keep reminding him of :D Hope you get to see BP—I'm looking to see it at some point too; although I might have to go sick to do so! ;) take care, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Gee, I am sorry. I am just waiting for that "state of mind" (the hours before a deadline) :-( Alex Shih (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries Alex Shih I told you it wasn't urgent—just pulling your leg  :)—and as I said, I've got plenty to be doing; look, I haven't even moaned about this, and that makes you look like Speedy Gonzales!!! Mind you, expecting anyone to sully their hands witth anything as sordid as GAs when they've got Infobox II around the corner is probably slightly naive! Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you sorry you asked me yet? If it's too much, let me know and I'll be happy to stop. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks Ealdgyth, no way, your PR is absolute gold dust, please. Just to say, I'm working on it as we spaek, but I'm doing it in big chunks and haven't save the page yet (whiiiich I should probably do ASAP). thing is, I'm likely to expand bits here and there (his crap inheriatnce and the Fitzalan dispute, I think mainly)—you'll be OK with that? Thanks again, it's exactly what I wanted-an Iridescent-syle forensic dissection. After all, it will only make it stronger in the long run, won't it. How was Black panther, btw?—worthy of the hype? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

BP was very very good. I'm not sure it was quite up to Civil War or either of the Guardians, but it was very very close. We had some technical glitches and got started late and then missed about 5 minutes near the end (because the computer didn't realize we'd started late...) so we got passes to see it again We did see the two end credit scenes, though. It's possible seeing the missing bits at the end will make me rate it a bit higher... we'll see. Looks like we'll go Sunday or Monday to see it in 3D then too. (We almost always see Marvel movies at least twice - I saw Guardians 2 four times, and Wonder Woman five - it's the only way to catch most of the in-jokes). I'd say worthy of the hype.... but not something for folks who haven't liked the other MCU movies...Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll hold off on more PR until you're done with the changes you're working on... don't want to cause edit conflicts as I fix small stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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^{...speculates} 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see why you think it isn't eligible for G11. However, I nominated it as U5. Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but look at it like: a crap article—is still an article (although crap). However, yes, I forgot the criteria you used, apologies. Tbh, of course, U5 is equally strict, if slightly vague: what part of WP:NOT would have applied? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your reasonable reasoning...now it's in draftspace, what'll happen in six months' time I wonder  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Close

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. GMG^talk 15:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Tempting opportunity to say you shouldn't be running anywhere at your age, GmG :p But I suppose: on the one hand I prefer not to re-open something I'm quasi-involved in, but on the other, someone who hasn't commented might not see the need to do so...uurgh —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

[2] GMG^talk 18:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 spot checks

• Just let me know if you need any sources. I will email then to you. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you know. Gonna take a look at this now! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• No need to do this. Ian Rose closed the Fac. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:30, 29 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 room} 14:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

You placed a link here [3] but there is sth wrong with it. It does not appear as an separate section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks User:Ktrimi991, I see User:LaundryPizza03 has sorted it, thanks extended to that quarter too. Happy Saturday, and cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:00, 12 May 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)

Yes, Ktrimi991, indeed it does; but it can't finish off a half-formed report. It was really bizarre. Take care and happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We're building it up to bring it back down.

We're building it up to burn it down. Can't wait to burn it to the ground. linkin park-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Tune  :) the aptness is terrific! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:48, 15 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)

Cartman = evil, Danny = all that is pure and good. Blah, blah, blah oo.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

True, I felt like Basil Fawlty by the end of it  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Monte Testaccio

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)

​ Clearly I did not: viz, they being an experienced user bowing down to MOS:LWQ, and you being neither. Happy days! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:28, 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)

You don't need to take it as a warning​—just to take it. All the best, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

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)

I don't think he can stop. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#A_RFC:_should_we_indiscriminately_move_mainspace_to_drafts

 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)

Interesting decision, given that the linked discussion has been removed. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

​ So it has—why? I was going to look in. "There's some strange sh*t going on here Coleman" —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary just said "withdrawn". Maybe it's a formatting thing. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

BLPVIO

User:Serial Number 54129, please explain how the comment by Special:Contributions/90.208.37.97—"Is Philip Cross emplyed [sic] by Oliver Kamm to edit his enemies Wikipedia pages?"—which you removed from another user's talk page, is (as claimed in your edit summary) a BLPVIO. Specifically, I'd like to know which BLP this comment violated. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an attempt at outing, as well as involving two living people. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

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)

Primefac, I asked an honest question. I appreciate your explanation, but please don't stalk me and please don't threaten me. KalHolmann (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 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 room} 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

cum paenitemus?

What does cum paenitemus mean? I assume it's Latin, but my quick search on the term drew a blank. wbm1058 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: "with apology," of course  :) the latter's the root (paenitēre) from whence we get "penitent"—see the connection? Hope all is well! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:44, 10 June 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. EEng 12:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Apologies for having the temerity to answer talk page messages! :D Never mind, just pretend I haven't answered; this page is definitely the place for off-colouration  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but timing is everything. EEng 13:18, 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). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm always good with cheap laughs, TheSandDoctor, enjoy...and good luck whatever happens: remember to pop over here again and let me know the result—preferably not with a block template :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:26, 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) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Careful on the edits please

Hi Serial,

You've reverted (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)

Please consult WP:CIVIL to help you understand appropriate behaviour when editing and communicationg with others - pay particular attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts

In particular, please in future:

Ensure all edits (especially ones likely to be challenged) are undertaken calmly, and with a clearly explained rationale.

Do not insult.

Check the history of edits before making claims about them.

Do not speedily-delete the edits of others and then drop warnings on their pages when they find themselves in the middle of an edit war you have started (even though I am sure you will have done so unintentionally).

Happy to discuss conduct further here, or (temporarily restored for that purpose) on my talk page. Conan The Librarian (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Conan The Librarian: Please actually read the policies you are attempting to cite. My edit-summaries were not uncivil, and template messages—which have been designed to explain a particular administrative consequence—by their nature cannot be so. Frankly, even if I told you that you do not know what you are talking about, I may be less civil, but far more accurate. Be advised that if you continue to insert your own original research or otherwise editorialise, administrative intervention may be requested.

Further, I have not insulted you; my edit-summaries have been (overly, even_ comprehensive, and with all, backed by policy. Yours, on the other hand, have been poorly or unsourced almost every time. Your saying otherwise does not make it so, except in your eyes. Yet, if you have finally stopped edit-warring, then presumably the system works. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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 room} 15:52, 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.

Beyond that, I've made my points and will "walk away" as per the civility advice, this is becoming a pointless time sink for me.Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• ​ I'm not sure what the takeaway will be from this; time will tell... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  Never undo anyone's edits, ever? Primefac (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

References

AN - RAN

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Richard_Arthur_Norton. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Could be worse -- could have been AYN RAND. EEng 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oh gosh, yes! I did once try to read Atlas Shrugged but the room soon filled with spat-out feathers. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up Sitush. Atlas Shrugged, I bottled it, you're a braver thing than me. Thanks are also due to EEng for bringing her up...  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Be careful with that phrase open fire.

-EEng

• It wasn't completely useless. I have an open fire ... - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sitush you are an open fire. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• Yeah, I don’t do pile-ons. That’s good for no one. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion

I came across this template, as I reverted some fly-by tagger who managed to think that a public university with around 200 affiliated colleges might not meet WP's notability guidelines.

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.....

Any thoughts?∯WBG^converse 03:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Uni clean-up tag was added April 2017 by a sock. On the face of it, strictly all it is doing is asking for adherence to WP:UNIGUIDE—which includes matters of notability but also many others (names, structure, etc.). After all, we know that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability on its own. Unfortunately, we will (probably) never know precisely what the template's original author's exact intentions were, as they haven't edited for nine years  :) Sup, Blades. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  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:)∯WBG^converse 18:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Abelmoschus Esculentus's talk page.
Message added 11:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since I am clearly watching your page, this was slightly unnecessary. But is not, compared to your previous misuse of rollback that is the subject of this ping, in itself a problem  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK

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 room} 13:43, 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)

@Gerda Arendt: I might have sorted it...many thanks for pointing it out though originally. I tend not to go back unless pinged so probably would never have noticed. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:27, 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)

My ping failed

See User:Serial Number 54129/Sussex Academic Press--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries SP, I replied n your talk (agrs ago, as it happens) so no need to reply. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Very best regards, as always. I'm here intermittently (it only seems like 24/7), but please drop me a line if I can ever help with anything. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha! No problem at all, '99...well, do you happen to know anything about the Cèllere Codex...? Hope all is well! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a thing, I'm afraid. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

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)

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 referencing WP: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 room} 13:33, 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·C 18:54, 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. -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:42, 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)

Maybe the editor is allergic to dogs? Drmies (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel like the proper response is "Your public domain picture makes your user page unreadable." --Tarage (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit the dog is a pain the arse when I'm looking at this page on my iPhone, but then I'm a cat person so I'm biased. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock

Do you think During the summer months before they could and Lesotho are related? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems the language in this diff is similar to (or same as) Lesotho ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Widr re. sock. How the heck did you find Losotho?! Personally no, I don't think so. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:41, 19 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 room} 13:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Who cares? The latter hasn't edited in a decade and isn't blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI —DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollback can be used to revert own edits by the way. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't "by the way" me. Just don't use rollback on another editor's talk page except in cases of blatant vandalism. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok so I use undo next time. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you must undo at all, then yes...but in this particular case, since you had asked me a question, it was only reasonable to assume that I would notice it—I had, after all edited just five minutes earlier—and either want to reply or feel enjoined to do so. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah you're right. I should think twice to avoid posting stupid messages like this one (commenting on myself). ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Someone please tell me this isn't more less-than-ideal use of rollback - TNT ^💖 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Ah, so this wasn't the first time the subject has come up. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: I thought rollback own edits is ok. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:30, 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)

DS alert

Hi. Why did you strike a DS alert I had placed here? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Have a guess  :) I have undone my erroneous striking/comment. Take care!—and thanks for the message. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:43, 21 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)

Please comment on Talk:List of military occupations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John–Eleanor Rykener

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)

2018 Laos dam collapse

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)

Yes, Night Lantern; that's why I wish that everyone adding their new sources would archive  :) then we know what was originally there. And no, I wasn't at all offended by the suggestion that I would add unsourced material :p Thanks for the message though! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

user talk lourdes July 2018

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Lourdes 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. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I moved her post to her page and replied to her. I was not using the warning or blocking template. Is there a way to turn off that template?

What about THE ARTICLE? She( hopefully lourdes=lady) reverted consensus that cfred reached and edits I made that were sourced. 2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought—and think—not, but thanks for the message. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

GA discussion

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)

I clearly do not believe you. Goodbye. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GAN

Hello, it appears you have been inactive in your GAN on Talk:John Fresshe/GA1. It is holding up the backlog and should be addressed as it has been a month. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Yeas, it is somewhat of a slow boat to China, what? Better a Night Boat to Cairo, any day! And all the best to you, colleague. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. A (non-)automated process has detected that when you recently edited User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cream cake (loading link...). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: WP:BALLS applies. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Errrr... fine, thanks for the random link. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: It means that I think your misuse of a template is bollocks, to use the vernacular. I'm sorry if it was confusing. Please also see WP:DTTR. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I totally misunderstood it. Not really... ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don’t think naughty but nice is related to Cream cake :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Twists the knife) @Abelmoschus Esculentus: How goes the content creation? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:26, 6 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)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Neither surprised nor disappointed. Surprised there's "nothing to write" about a non-anglospheric (?) city of >7 × 10⁶ people. BTW, See  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I can't find reliable sources for many of the (non-)notable attractions. Also, most of the stuff I can think of already has an article. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Ritchie333

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 | Talk 23:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yo Calton, sorry about that—you're right though, therer was an edit-conflict, and one in which not only did I balls up your unsigndness, but managed to destroy Ritchie's original reply to you! Uuugh  :) not bad for two minutes' work eh  ;) apologies again! Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:27, 6 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)

:) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Warning ?

Please refrain from posting irrelevant "warnings" on others users talk pages, the case has been reviewed by an admin (Number 57) who blocked Kleuske. If i had to be warned for edit-warring, Number 57 would have warned me. Also, since your behavior seems to be WP:NOTHERE, do not post on my talk page again. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If Serial Number 54129 is WP:NOTHERE, who is here?! /wiae /tlk 19:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...."NOTHERE"? --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

​ That was pretty specialist :D a "laugh out loud" moment, that! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani, you're lucky you didn't get blocked, because I count four instances (1 2 3 4) where you undid in what, 26 hours? The 24-hour rule is a guideline, not a hard deadline. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

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? Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 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. Cassianto^Talk 20:09, 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. Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 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. SQL^{Query 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.

Yours, NOTHERE :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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 stalk 13:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It's quite artistic really  :) nosy! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We could start a new trend of undenting, too. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

this is ridiculous Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 8 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)

Cheers, Mr rnddude, all well here. I see, though, that you've rumbled my cunning plan to stop you reading anything on this page by only posting in the far-far-right handside  ;) :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

RE

@Primefac: I withdrawn the RFC. I apparently forgotten to remove this TB. I reverted others. Basically it is this AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_streets_in_Crawley_and_Nedlands. And if you have time do read this, if TL/DR, nevermind, I will concise if I have the time. Quek157 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Incubating here maybe better.

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 room} 18:56, 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 room} 11:12, 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 room} 13:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Re email

Hello, looking at the deleted history, the page was created by the user ​ on January 5, 2017. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks 331dot; and presumably that artcle was their only edit, now deleted...Will ponder it. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:17, 17 April 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)

Righto! It's been relaunched under a slightly different name, 331dot, just so you know why I ask. I assume they're reasonably different versions, as the last was a G12 of something, and, acc. Earwig, this isn't of anything. Thanks again! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric and Ritchie333: I see you have an interest in this; fyi, re: iterations and reitertions  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Matthews (artist)

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 room} 19:30, 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? ceranthor 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: No, I think I mined all there was to mine—there just wasn't much of that! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 07:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it'll be just fine. ceranthor 21:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A-class review credit

G'day, Serial Number 54129, regarding the list on WP:MHCOORD, I gave you a credit for your review work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward the Elder, which is why your name appeared there. I'm sorry that your experience of the project has not been a positive one. If you do not wish to receive a barnstar for this, we will of course respect your wishes. Nevertheless, please accept my personal thanks for your involvement with that review. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha! ​ It seems I am not alone. A colleague of yours seems also to have observed similar terseness, wall-of-text bludgeoning and what appears to be a general aversion towards both nuance or the mildest of criticism.

I appreciate this reply is somewhat belated—although I did thank you for your post four minutes after you made it  :) —but this has only just been brought to my attention. In any case, thank you for the work you do there, our few interactions were always pleasanat and productive. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

Well, that's luck for you. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

category invasion
... you were recipient no. 1622 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt, I remember, it was English invasion of Scotland (1400), etc.,...I think the pointless invasion of a small country would have been much more peaceful than the last few days. A first FAC has proved interesting, a new PR rather less so!  :) Take care, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:40, 30 March 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)

Sent to test us I think Gerda Arendt...I'm afraid I couldn't do much with the Ortega, Sinatras, or Mountain Goats tags—that's very un/popular culture I'm afraid, and I couldn't find any RS. Or, at least, what I assumed were RS. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:59, 4 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)

@Gerda Arendt: Test, as in try: But Gtranslate tells me that what I meant is "geschickt, um uns zu versuchen"  :) I can only see Gbook snippets I'm afraid, which of course is limiting. Enjoy the conzert... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

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)

I'm glad that you thought that was an answer. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Alack, thou shalt not know me, Völsung. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:01, 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)

Excellent news, thank you for bringing it, SA 13 Bro, much appreciated. It's good to know the antennae are still working. Although they'll be back for adminship in 2020 👀 😀 eh Ritchie333 🤘 😉 —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:48, 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)

Yes, it was rather bold, wasn't it... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, was silly of him... Lourdes 16:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie's first law of socks - Any account whose first edit is to their own user or user talk page is a sock. Oh look. I don't believe I have been proved wrong yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Yes, the check was deal by DoRD. I seemed this user before at User talk:Harshrathod50#RFA, when I patrolled the recent changes at Meta-Wiki site just now and I saw one of our global steward Linedwell has locked that account. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Shits himself temporarilly / runs off to check what first edit was...phew*  ;) :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, if your user ID is 54129, are you a sock of Rah? oO Regards SoWhy 17:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yo SoWhy—sorry, you've lost me! That Rah doesn't seem to have been particularly radical (or active, for that matter!)—sup?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Because Rah is the user with ID 54129 Regards SoWhy 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see! Of course. V clever :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Now will you rename yourself to "Serial Number 19912518" willingly or do we have to force you to? PS: Funny enough, my actual user ID has five digits and starts with 54... Regards SoWhy 20:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If you convert 54129 to hex and turn it upside down, you get ILED. I wonder if there was an old ZX Spectrum game that, when it loaded, called RANDOMIZE USR 54129 to run? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't convert 54129 to hex and turn it upside down, you get (the anagram of) "b∀lƧS" if you read it in a mirror, liberally. Lourdes 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How cute!

Aint it dinky  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Aw. Keep it up, 54129, and in no time you'll have made twenty, even twenty-five! ;-) --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yaay  :) then I'll be at big school! :D >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The system generates milestone(??)-notifications up till how many edits?~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 13 February 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. GMG^talk 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wait, the system pinged me to come here? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No idea about milestones. Probably until one tells a commons admin to B*gger off and gets indeffed (*I love a party with a happy atmosphere*).
  • Who pinged you Drmies?
  • And...just one lone edit can make a small difference  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:09, 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... ;-) --bonadea contributions talk 20:37, 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^{...speculates} 19:17, 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)

Ha! Corcaigh abú, eh Ceoil! Not so sure that "The S.W.W.R.A." has such a ring to it though  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:49, 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)

We have. It used to be my local! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:03, 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, –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 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, –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 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)

Thank you

How to deal with The Administration

Thank you for your support, and for your common sense. Much appreciated. nagualdesign 17:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, common-sense can't in that short a supply can it. Oh, wait...

Never mind humour, nagualdesign, or sense: I luuuve this, can I shamelessly steal it? Well, obviously not that shamelessly or I wouldn't ask :p but you get my drift. It's brilliant! How'd you do it? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm rather pleased with it myself. Gerda gave me a link to this page the other day and I noticed the "approved cabal for improvement" stamp of approval, so I... umm... borrowed it. You're welcome to use it or change it as you see fit. nagualdesign 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The only problem around here might be wearing it out through over-use!!! :D Thanks very much! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid" they say. Although ad hominem reasoning "is essential to understanding certain moral issues". nagualdesign 19:28, 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? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 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. nagualdesign 20:27, 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! nagualdesign 20:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)} I don't think Ivan said you were wrong, I believe Ivan said it was unwise. Being "right" and being "wise" are different concepts. Anyway, welcome back to the land of the living, and happy editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The würst that can happen is that I have to make my own sausage and peppers ;) -western problems eh! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:06, 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). nagualdesign 21:05, 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^{...speculates} 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For "people who get promoted beyond their abilities" read the Peter principle. nagualdesign 21:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks; I hadn't come across that before... it explains most of the bloody railway managers I've ever had :D >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 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? nagualdesign 21:05, 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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 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. nagualdesign 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: My comments were not intended to address this specific situation. I'm sorry if I implied that. I was simply saying that an editor can edit war without approaching WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 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. nagualdesign 21:50, 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^{...speculates} 12:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, he's nervous. EEng 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Twelve blocks in ten years; I think it's us that should be nervous... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We. "It is we who should be nervous." Jeesh. EEng 15:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Oui? :p >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wee.

–EEng

Wheeee!!!

–EEng

Oui are not amused.

–EEng

Well, the old place needed a bit of colour  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs sound to go with it. Anmccaff (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hehe... You realize that humour will not be tolerated around here, right? Stop that at once! nagualdesign 17:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)