Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Good man, many thanks Binod Basnet, and the same to you and those you keep! ——SerialNumber54129 19:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: yes, I'm sure we will enjoy each others' company next year as much as we have this year :p  ;) but, on a serious note, thanks, and best wishes for the new year to you and yours. ——SerialNumber54129 13:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

hahaha, surely. And best wishes for the new year to you and yours too. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Serial Number 54129, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
	Hi Serial Number 54129, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas, and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year! May 2019 be prosperous and joyful...... Thanks for all your help and your contributions to the 'pedia ∯WBGconverse 16:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

	None More Gothic Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of cheer. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: [1]  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, buddy. The last time I tried to get back to the wiki, I failed miserably, as I had no idea how I should contribute. Are there any articles I could help with, as I want to get back into the rhythm? Thanks in advance, Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 13:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the John/Eleanor Rykener article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 10, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 10, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: it's funny you should mention that...I put this up. Three days later as it turns out  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm planning to run that too, haven't got to that date yet though. We are more flexible than we used to be about running two TFAs by the same editor, as long as they aren't too similar in topic. I've had enough scheduling today, so it will tomorrow before I get to the TFAR. Soon be time to open some wine... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

To Serial Number 54129:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that! As you presumably surmised, I created the page when I CSDed his original userpage (with identical content). He stuck all that on there when the first page was deleted. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes indeed! Sorry about that; I did uncheck the "notify page creator" box, but perhaps it ignores that in the case of attack pages? Hope you're well! ——SerialNumber54129 12:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I expect you're right about the attack page thing, that makes sense. I'm very well, except for getting all these notifications about that page (I had just finished deleting Venemous Spider's message when yours popped in!). Merry Christmas when it comes... GirthSummit _(blether) 12:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Parliament of 1327 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 13, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 13, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

Also pinging GreyGreenWhy as TFAR co-nominator.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Maybe I shouldn't have put that on DGG's page. It was just he was very helpful when I did Afc and we shared a, very dim, view of paid editing and when I came across this guy..... Page after page of weakly-sourced articles on non-notable actors, where he's taken many of the photos. Honestly, it's the kind of stuff that makes one despair of this place. KJP1 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: Then our views on WP:PAID are also in alignment...which is nice. Slight misunderstanding though—I didn't remove your post from DGG's page; it's still there, all I did was remove some junk that had been spammed below your thread by an IP (see the history). As if I'd have such temerity. Hope you're well KJP1! ——SerialNumber54129 19:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wtf just happened??! Flooded with them hundreds 17:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

^^^That's what  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thought it was real for a minute! Flooded with them hundreds 17:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It was very real—Big Red Box and all :) —just not for very long. Ah well—in fairness, it can hardly be said to have tarnished my blocklog any more than I already have! ——SerialNumber54129 17:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw the block on my watchlist and said what the fudge. I'm glad the BS was tracked down quickly SN. In the face of this nonsense the fact that you came up with the word "mahoosive" shows a wonderful perspective on your part. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Mmm. Fudge. --sign. "I have nothing of value to add but must have my share in the conversation bonadea contributions talk 18:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and Bonadea: Mmmm  :) my talk page all talk pages need more fudge on them. Ironically, there's some truth to the notion that, as they say, as one saga closes, another saga begins. Couldn't make it up! ——SerialNumber54129 14:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Around here "Red Box" means something different [2]. 92.8.221.206 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just you wait! Just because we couldn't make the socking charge stick (and, come on, we all know you engage in that almost daily!) is no reason to crow. We now have you dead to rights on a WP:PAID violation for accepting 78's cookies and hot chocolate out of process! Both cookies and hot chocolate fall under Schedule E of the Controlled Comfort Foods regulation and may only be distributed through a properly licensed Barnstar specialist (or smeone with the "founder" bit in their advanced permissions, but he can't bake a decent cookie to save his life). You'll have the mandatory notice template as soon as we can figure out the right procedure for filing a case at ArbCom! --Xover (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number, instead of playing around with other editors' talk pages, why don't you ask for their sockpuppet investigation page to be unprotected, so that when editors are courteous enough to give notice of an investigation they can respond? 92.8.221.206 (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@92.8.221.206, it would probably help if that page wasn't longer than the Mile End Road; and that is a matter in which you can materially assist! ——SerialNumber54129 12:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello I'm Cameron11598 and I am a clerk for the arbitration committee. I recently removed some comments you made from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. See Special:Diff/869848927. Please keep comments on topic, and related to the case at hand. Please keep in mind that editors are expected to conduct themselves according in a decorum and with behavior expected by community standards. I am also required by our procedures to warn you that arbitration clerks are authorized by the arbitration policy and ArbCom precedent to sanction users for conduct on arbitration pages, including by blocks and topic bans from the case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cameron11598. You might find people listening to more if you acted slightly more equitably; viz, if you're going to template regulars, please have the decency to template all or none; anything else smacks—of something unsavoury. Many thanks for your efforts, in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 20:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

haven't gotten there yet, but your input is well taken. I had to leave my computer to handle something. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, your patience and advice is appreciated this is the first case I've been assigned as a clerk. Also love the picture of the dog, reminds me of my dog Bailey. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

including by blocks and topic bans from the case for the comments you removed? I understand that you are new in the arena but why not pen down a succinct and personalized note? ∯WBG^converse 20:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that language is required by the clerks procedure, we are required to reference the Arbitration Policy section that authorizes sanctions when issuing warnings :/ --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Cameron is correct. As should be fairly well known by now, I disapprove of the existence of arbcom clerks (in my time, I refused ever to 'direct the clerks' to perform any action on the grounds that if I wanted something done I could damn well do it myself and take the flak), but those "communicate only in templates" rules exist for a reason, to make it clear they're operating without fear or favor. ‑ Iridescent 20:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, which is the reason I am not myself in 100% agreement with DTTR—templates guarantee that each recipient receives the same information, phrased the same way, with all nuance striped from them, which means that only the recipient is responsible for how they interpret the information. However, another prerequisate is that they are, as you say, distributed "without fear or favour", and it was that that I was quarrelsome over. However, equality rejoiced some 20' later, so all is well. And Cameron11598 has, I think, forgiven me, so all is weller... ——SerialNumber54129 11:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha. The one instance where template-ese is a good idea? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few circumstances where we mandate the use of an exact wording to avoid any suggestion of bias. Template:ds/alert is probably the best known of them. ‑ Iridescent 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What a silly warning that's equally as silly as the harmless exchanges, but I don't blame Cameron. If drafters think something needs to be removed and users warned, do it yourself. Alex Shih (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I'd agree  ;) but in this particular case it was not a committee member, let alone a drafter... ——SerialNumber54129 11:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

When in doubt, assume everything going on evidence/workshop is being actively talked about privately with "directives" being issued to "confirm" actions going forward. Alex Shih (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether in doubt or not, assume that the outcome of Arbcom cases is largely predestined and—barring the revelation of something extraordinary in the evidence phase, or a total meltdown by one of the participants—every arb has known from the outset what the result will be. I think the last case where it genuinely wasn't possible to predict the outcome of the case the moment it was accepted was Infoboxes, and that was over five years ago now. ‑ Iridescent 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Under the principle of focus on the content not the contributors, I am asking you to remove the link you put on a certain Talk page. I have had enough trouble with stalkers without someone calling undue attention like that. I should be able to post on a Talk page without that kind of response, which has nothing to do with the discussion subject. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd prefer I made an unsubstantiated assertion?! ——SerialNumber54129 11:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That's how you're going to play this? After over five years of editing you're going to act like you don't understand focus on the content not the contributors? You know your "assertion" had nothing to do with the Talk page discussion. When I object and tell you I have had problems with stalkers, you should consider removing that link, not doubling down on it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that if I remove the link, then it will still say that you should "go and write an article" or whatever. What's the point? And what does stalking have to with it? ——SerialNumber54129 17:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Per beans, I shouldn't have to explain that to you. My preference is to not draw more attention to something that should never have been posted. For the third time, your post had nothing to do with the Talk page discussion topic. I am only asking you to remove the link, but I can expand that to you removing the whole post, as it had nothing to do with the subject. You can also remove my response to your post, or if you prefer I will do that myself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No response. Alright, I'll be taking this to a third party. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) You got me interested ;) - The advice was never given to me, but I arrived at it myself. I write my articles, of course with the thing that has been termed a bad word, and when others argue like on said certain page (where a comment earned me the lable "monster") and a few others, I grin. I have done that (writing my own and grinning) for about threes years and am happier than before when I cared (see last item in first archive). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:...although I haven't called Gothicfilm a Nationalist (yet) 😊 ——SerialNumber54129 10:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Monster was much better, - I illustrated it, DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The user Bruceeddie01 has returned to keep changing the date of birth it says on the website of his band. We surely have to go with what the band's actual website says. I'm getting rather bored with playing this game now. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly: well, looking at the page history, I don't blame you; but why tell me, if you don't mind my asking? (—asking because I've never edited that page!) ——SerialNumber54129 11:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Because I saw that you had already warned him on his Talk page. I previously told User talk:John on his Talk page because I'd seen him clean up many articles over the years, but didn't get a reply, but noticed your comments on the Talk page of this disruptive user. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly: Ah, thanks very much! Apologies if I sounded like I didn't believe you  :) anyway, I see what you mean. I've watchlisted the page. Even if they are in the right—and they could be, people do "adjust" their ages occasionally don't they—edit-warring is not the approach to take, even on the slow burn. They're on the right track by listing some sources on their talk—but a) they seem not to be of indeterminate reliability in some cases and outrightly unreliable in others (discogs and de-wp, for example), and b) the discussion of sources should be at article talk, not user talk. Right. Thanks for the message! ——SerialNumber54129 12:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

They're back. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page - Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You may or may not need to understand chess very much for this. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship_2018&diff=869781117&oldid=869760317. Just in case others are to intervene, a topic on this will be created on the talk page. Make sure to type out your opinion of the edit made in that link at the talk page for the respective article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Err...well, as you suggest, I've replied on the talk...  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This's a weird request but can you kindly help in writing a decent lead for Rajendralal Mitra? And, any help as to the entire article will be immensely welcome:-) ∯WBG^converse 05:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And, how much more work needs to be done before I can go for a GA? ∯WBG^converse 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten:---->my first edit today. With a solid lead, a copy edit (you and your single-sentence paras again!), and tidying up the refs—yeah, I'd say that you'd be OK. As far as content goes, it wouldn't WP:GAFAIL, but prose would be a helluva lot of work that (as you know, by coming here!) would be expected to be done before nominating. Anyway, that can be dealt with. I've got a bit on, but will definitely attend ASAP. ——SerialNumber54129 14:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for getting back. I'm not creating a page as a "user" or "contributor", but rather as subject of reference based on my work. I've done over 70 films and I am of course referenced in these cast lists and articles. But there is no way to learn further about me as there is no link . So I created a bio page, resume, and additional information and it was mysteriously deleted. I, today, created a new page but I'm told it can take up to 3 months. But based on what you stated ( creating a page about onesself) it may just get deleted again. Not sure how to proceed. Do I need a third party to create it? I know many artists who have edited/ created their own pages in order to allow audiences to understand more about them, as a point of reference versus simple self promotion. Thanks for your time ( if you have it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babazonian (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Babazonian: "I'm not creating a page as a "user" or "contributor"" Why not? "But there is no way to learn further about me as there is no link." That's not Wikipedia's problem; we're not here for advertising. "Do I need a third party to create it?" Yes. Go to WP:RB and offer a reward for someone to write it for you. "I know many artists who have edited/ created their own pages" Pointing to other bad behavior does not excuse yor bad behavior, nor does their conduct make the practice allowable. Please give me their names so that I may educate them. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Snark is Fun! But these questions aren't absurd . Your reponse, although riotous, wasn't particularly helpful. It turns out, the subjects of film , tv, music , literature, science , WHATEVER, have pages serving as a reference. In fact in turns out there is a site called Wikipedia that allows users and participants to look up information on these people. As I happen to be a person publicly referred to on this site, I thought it would be helpful to expand on that info.I'm not some famous person, but I personally am referenced at times due to the nature of my work. That's all. I have other means to "promote". This is about reference and information which I thought was the point on this website. Thanks for your helpful sincerity Chris.......-J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babazonian (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly serious. If you want Wikipedia to have an article about you (and you don't, really) then go to WP:RB. That's the best advice; anything else will not work out for you. I've written articles for pay before. For the right reward, I might even write it up for you. Yes, I want to pursue "many artists who have edited/ created their own pages" because I'm pretty good at getting stuff deleted. There's a noticeboard that watches for this sort of activity. Fact is, if Wikipedia wanted an article about you, it would have been written. The readers of Wikipedia don't get a vote on this. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Serial Number 54129: for your complimentary comment on articles I have started, and encouragement for their review...very heartening! Jamesmcardle^(talk) 22:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		I think you're the one who dropped this. All I did was spend 2 minutes with XfDcloser, while you wrote 3000 words on a topic within 36 hours! Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wel, ta, Galobtter! But as I say above: How obvious is it that I've never read the bloody book :D I wish I knew somebody who clearly had though...  ;) thanks again! ——SerialNumber54129 11:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have read dear Mr Thackeray's great satire — that's why I dedicated my Jane Eyre to him. That didn't turn out very well, but it was heartfelt! Thank you very much, Mr. Serial Number (I use a pseudonym too, so I quite understand) for your wonderful work exposing the little minx Becky Sharp. Charlotte Bronte talk 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC).

Pretty funny, but I'm glad you caught it. I need a break. The decision felt right. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: yeah, I thought it the self-aggrandisment was slightly out of character  ;) but seriously, it is a shame, but—having said that—your reasons are excellent. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 10:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Becky Sharp 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

:)

to take BGR-34 for DYK but can't think of a hook. Your input(s) will be immensely appreciated:-) ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:...making the wild assumption that you ever get this as you never seem to acknowledge anything :p How about something like

...that BGR-34 has been described as both a "revolutionary innovation" and as a "flagrant violations of established clinical standards"?

Mind you—just FYI—that article says a helluvva lot negatory about that firm...in Wikipedia's voice :D Jytdog would love it  :( ——SerialNumber54129 14:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh; did I miss any ping/email? Apologies:(

That's a solid hook and will do my job; very likely:-) As to the subject, it's a tragic case of driving research by populist whims and to be fair, I did not find a single non-PR-journalism that did not spoke lowly of the drug and the people involved therein.

I would have asked Jytdog to take a look but ........... We lost someone who was envyingly-competent and existed for all the right purposes; irrespective of his occasional transgressions whatever they might have been. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Done:-) ∯WBG^converse 18:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CHOKING says "The text on a 32 kB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection.... so pages significantly larger than this are difficult for older browsers to display." Please explain the law-of-physics defying magic that means this does not apply to user talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Because out of a ~250 word section, it mentions the word article eight times, list three times, and user and talk...zero times. Now I wish you to explain your ever-increasing similarity to a holistic garden implement. Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

is forbidden. SN, you ought to know that! ∯WBG^converse 14:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha! The imputation that that was trolling rather offends me. As If i couldn't do better than that if I tried, Kudpung! A lighthearted effort at diffusing—perhaps clumsilly—an unnecessarilly and increasingly heated discussion between friends is not trolling; calling editors cunt, is trolling :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If anyone needs a lesson in humour, and one about not interfering with the work of seasoned users it's Winged Blades of Godric. He can now patch together the article I was writing about and disturbed, and put back all my images and new up to date sources. I lived in that street before he was born. Ha! but he's never contributed an article himself, but feels well qualified to police the work of experienced users. Is that what NPP has degenerated into these days? Is that how you guys treat the newbies? Figure that in all my nearly 8 years as an admin I've never taken any one to ANI? Hardly surprising that experienced users are leaving this place in drones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Stay classy, San Diego! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw this and thought of you... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Compare also the wooferendum. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

​​ Good Wickham. What smart clothes he has. I must find his tailor! I hope our dogs in the woods get a vote in the wooferendum; although I suppose it'll have to be a postal one :) In the meantime, they reckon, it's turned into a right old dog's Brexit, aint it! ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

... is inadequate for thanking a user for multiple similar edits, I guess. So I'll just say, thank you for reverting all the canvassing by Alizafar567, and warning them. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

@The Bishonen (see, you're a definite article), thanks very much; it didn't put out much though :) And another 30 seconds-worth of ceaseless research (or so) gives us this (possibly). Ils reviens, huh.——SerialNumber54129 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised. Ah yes, The Bishonen! Indeed!

..Where a master in a white kimono taught him

In a shining moment the myth of the bishonen

The youthful hero doomed to fall like blossom.

Bishonen | talk 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

Hi Serial Number 54129, last time i came here, that was not for good reasons, maybe you remember. This time, i'm here to thank you with my own words for the warning you posted on this user's talk page. I reported this user for the second time within a week for persistent edit-warring at List of largest empires. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Now then Wikaviani, I don't want to go searching through the archives  :) I hope you are well though. And, yes, I see your report, I think you had no choice. I understand they have just come off a block for edit-warring and recommenced exactly the same behaviour? Unbelievable really. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who accused you of being a WP:NOTHERE user months ago. I must confess that i never forgave myself for this mistake. I would be really happy if you accepted my sincere appologies. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I remember Wikaviani, and absolutely no problem at all, a misunderstanding. I'm sure we're both in a better place now; if only the rest of them were, eh! All my best, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much man, i mean it. Wish you a great day. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Congrats! Well deserved, it is a very pleasing and enjoyable read. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help last year, including the review for the TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Same to you, Gerda. Yeah, I saw you say hello to a mutual friend; I feel a bit bad about that, as one of his blocks (October 2017) was at least in part because he followed me but too close to the wire. Gutting. On a lighter note, yes I thought I recognised TFA  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I am almost prouder that our local music is pictured in the DYK section ;) - The friend quoted me right mext to Martin Luther King (on his user page, a lost treasure), which made me blush even before I wrote (with Yoninah) about Michael Robinson. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

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

This footnote in the Major Works section needs to be clarified:

Refn|Specifically, Bloch wanted to know why France and Florence were the first European nations to issue gold coinage. The traditional theory was that they simply had greater treasuries and so required a means of storing it in cash. Bloch, however, showed that Florence was as wealthy as these two states, yet did not issue gold for many more years; the reason was because France and Florence, at that time, traded with the east, whose traders commonly paid in gold; Florence, on the other hand, generally paid in silver, and so that city-state failed to accumulate gold.

Are there two or tree states? The sentence "...Florence was as wealthy as these two states implies there is a third which is not mentioned in the text.

Also the Recognition section is an uncited mess and needs work.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

"You guess...correctly :D ;) just joshing you bro."

DannyS712 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The article Percy Glading 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:Percy Glading for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

See you around in 2019, I hope. Have a good transition! --bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Bonadea, I'm looking forward to it! :D all the best to you and yours! ——SerialNumber54129 19:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

First off, thank you for the kind words -- I really do appreciate it. I'm glad I could be of some help, and I'm glad you were able to figure out a solution to your problem. However, there are a few things you should know about vector graphics and how it pertains to your image.

In general, you should never have embedded raster images in your svg graphic. It defeats one of the main benefits of vector graphic -- infinite scalabilty; that is, you should be able to "zoom in" to a vector file as much as you want, and it should never pixilate. Notice that when you open File:Southern counties 1140 + towns1.svg and zoom in, the "raster part" shows pixels, and the "vector part" you edited does not. Now, I think I figured out exactly what you did to create your file and how we can fix this.

If I'm correct, when you saved File:English counties 1851.svg, you right-clicked and selected "save image as...". This is incorrect when saving SVG files. You should right-click and select "save link as...". Then, open the file with Inkscape and begin editing.

The first thing to do when editing this file for your purpose is to select the image in Inkscape, right click and select "ungroup". Then, select the continent and again "ungroup". Now, you can select individual counties and simply change their color! This is one great thing about vector graphics.

I'll leave the rest to you. If you need any help cropping SVG files in inkscape or anything else, let me know. But, you should definitely follow the steps above and reupload your image over the existing. Again, let me know if you need anything! Pbroks13 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pbroks13: Right! I should've realised it wouldn't be that easy  :) can I fix the one I've already done or does it have to be started over from scratch? ——SerialNumber54129 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you’ll have to start over. But it’s good practice! Pbroks13 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi SN 54129, if I may be so informal. A happy new year to you. Just a reminder that a couple of weeks ago you put down a placeholder for the source review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Berwick (1333)/archive1. Obviously, this being Wikipedia, feel free to get on with it at whatever pace you wish and I am grateful to you for picking it up. As the FAC now has five supports and an image review, and as it is only my second FAC, you will understand my newbie enthusiasm to, hopefully, see it over the line and the next one started through the process. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Well, it's quarter to nine at night here, so not right now  :) but yes, I'll definitely address it tomorrow. My operating philosophy on these things is that source checks should be left until last, as the prose-reviewing process could lead to the addition / removal of some / many sources, and that would result in wasted labour...well, my wasted labour, anyway! But I know the feeling; reviews are always welcome, whenever they occur. Hope you're enjoying your trip! Sounds fun. And a happy new year to you and yours! ——SerialNumber54129 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Part timer . That is prompt. Thank you. Yes, I start thinking "Those two 'spare' reviews could have been on my next FAC". Childish I know, but when I lose that enthusiasm I shall probably stop editing. Baron de Ros it is. (I looked this over for a copy edit at GOCE, but someone beat me to it; nice looking article.)

Trip is good. Texas weather the past five days has been heavy overcast, breezy, a lot of moderate to heavy showers, and highs of 6-9°C. In short, much like staying in England. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Would you prefer a source review or a normal assessment? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A quick note to say thanks for the prompt and thorough review. I hadn't realised how extensive it would need to be, nor how much I had left undone. Your wading through it is appreciated. Also thanks for the kind word you have put in with the coordinators. That is particularly appreciated. I have started going through your list. In a number of areas I am firing questions back, and/or explaining why it is the way it is. This is not to be argumentative, at least not consciously, but because I want to try and really understand the requirements. And, purely as a bit of banter, you may be as amused as me that some of the issues you have picked up, a small proportion, were introduced by you when you added material as it went through GAN.^{[citation needed]} Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Err, right. Not the swingeing cuts someone made subsequently then :p ——SerialNumber54129 08:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

HNY - sorry you had to endure that as well (see my talk page history :( ) one small problem is that recent blocks have not been tied back to the core sock [3] JarrahTree 14:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

All the best to you too, JarrahTree, and many thanks for the information. I was sure I'd seen another guise of theirs, but couldn't for the life of me remember. Shall I update the sock page, then? ——SerialNumber54129 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

the problem the individual is doing it for over a year now, almost every month, and hasnt got tired of it - hasnt got much english either - there is usually also a universal block from the meta point. even will go into aiv to be annoying. maybe the email will help understand the issue JarrahTree 15:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you're faffing about in that bit at the moment, and as I can't quite recall whether I pointed you at it previously: there's a bibliography for Ross in one of my sandboxen. The commentary are my notes to self regarding what's in the particular source, and as you can see I've only partially digested the list. The long and short is that I found nothing there that would absolutely need to be included; but in case you want to trawl it for tidbits… In any case, apologies for not producing anything that would have been of any use to you on this project. I may still get around to doing something on this, but, sadly not in a relevant timeframe.

PS. And while I'm contributing to the overflow of your talk page: happy hollidays and all the best to you in the new year! Cheers, --Xover (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: My god, a goldmine! Many many thanks, that's very kind—OK if I copy it to one of my boxes? Then you can have yours back  :) I bet there's stuff that will come in useful for other historical articles too (remember Mowbray, for instance]]?). "Faffing" is certainly a good way of describing the current SOP: I just realised that I've got no real criteria for including performances, and in many cases they don't even seem to have a Ross—is his the sort of part that might be written out and lines given to someone else, d'you think? Happy Newness to you too! ——SerialNumber54129 15:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy away (and Diannaa has to trout me regularly because the attribution requirements for internal copying on enwp just don't register, so please feel free to grab any of my stuff with impunity!). I was very specifically looking for Ross in my trawl so this will be only incidentally useful for others (do let me know if you need me to dig up a list for anyone else: grabbing the list is fairly straightforward, it's digesting it into something useful that takes time). And, yes, Ross is definitely a role that's liable to be cut: there's three of them in the central scene, and Ross is interchangeable there; and whether the scene itself is important or surplus depends on whether you intend to portray Bolingbroke as a calculated usurper or the saviour of England. --Xover (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Xover; I wish you were a RS  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

check your email. ceranthor 19:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC) optimism that verges on delusion sometimes, though... ceranthor 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Very sorry for the delay—I have, and will reply. But I just wanted to put on record that it's a shining example of that optimism that verges on delusion you mentioned  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Guilty as self-charged. ceranthor 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ricky Megee 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you rolled back my helpful contributions? I'd be grateful if you didn't do that again, ok? 213.205.240.166 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Oxford (1142) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat:..."The reply is never cold"... :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I just accidently posted in your talk archive. Apologies. Carrying on from there:

(Yet more) Apologies for the attempt at banter. I won't do it again.

Additional appreciation for leading me by the hand in the source review and not just repeating "not in source cited". I understand that a thorough source review takes a lot of time, and flagging up alternatives even longer. Thanks for spending it on this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If you have a moment, check out User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2019 (formerly Christmas), for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Today, thank you for Parliament of 1327, "almost a revolutionary body, for the first time in English history, a reigning monarch was juridically removed and replaced. King Edward II—did he resign, or was he deposed?! Find out here today. Actually, of course, you won't because—naturally—historians do not agree, as usual, so for me to draw any conclusions would be an indulgence in bubblegum."! - What do you think of Ray's rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Danke schön, Gerda; I heartily agree. And it occurs to me that if we had been able to offer that advice—when it counted—to certain colleagues, we might not have lost the comrades we have over the recent years. ——SerialNumber54129 07:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message and welcome.

I have given extensive notes on the reasons for my relatively minor changes to the entry which serve to bring this entry in line with the pillar of being written from a neutral point of view. These reasons can be found on the talk page of the entry, and further explanation on another editor's talk page.

To put this in line with Wikipedia's pillars see "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." and "Wikipedia has no "opinion" of its own; it just accurately summarizes reliable sources."

So first I draw attention to 'representing fairly, proportionately and without editorial bias' in relation to the intro of the version you have reverted to. In this intro the editorial bias is clear in conflating two separate usages without evidence, and in providing examples (unsourced) of how this "tactic" (partisan language) is employed. The bias here gives an academic weight to a colloquial expression that is not evidenced. The entry also gives undue proportion to the usage of the expression in the field of evolutionary biology known as signal theory where, in fact, there has been two single uses of the expression 'virtue signalling'. Both uses are by the same author who is not a signal theorist but rather a theologian, and neither of which provide an explanation of the expression. (This feature of the entry also contradicts the notion of accurately summarizing reliable sources). Secondly, the proportion of having the first section entitled "In signalling theory" in which the first paragraph poorly explains signalling theory (with citations not referring to any sources that discuss 'virtue signalling') gives a weight to the idea that this is an established sub-theoretical notion signal theory (which it verifiably isn't), and makes any passing reader not investigating the sources cited as thinking it has a much wider usage than it does.

I now draw your attention to the phrase "accurately summarizes reliable sources" from the above-linked simplified rules page. Most obviously inaccurate of all on the entry is the claim that "The blog LessWrong applied this sense of virtue signalling to non-academic discussions as early as February 2009" which links to two pages of the LessWrong blog. As mentioned in my talk notes, this is verifiably false and completely misleading. The blog makes no reference to an academic notion of virtue signalling (indeed, the evidence suggests there is no such tangible thing in the first place), and so to claim it applies this academic sense to non-academic discussions looks at best careless, at worst dishonest. This is a blatant breaking of the rule cited above, and I don't see why allowing this to stand pending discussion from other editors (which is not forthcoming) is the most credible option for Wikipedia.

It is of high importance that without evidence that the colloquial usage and academic usage are linked that they should be discussed only in the entirely factual sense that there have been a few uses of an expression "virtue singalling" in academia, and there is a widespread more recent colloquial usage but that there are no notable links between the two. That is what my edit does. It removes sources, yes, but if you read my notes this is until this currently confused entry is collaboratively rethought.

I would like to add that you and other editors are also, as you say, "repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Virtue signalling." The difference between my edits and your edits though is that I have given detailed reasoning for my changes, you are simply reverting it without discussion. My edits are in line precisely with the most recent comment in the talk section left by editor Zed and seeing as nobody has replied to this editor's post of October 2018 requesting these very changes, it seems safe to say there are no current objections to correcting the gross inaccuracies and misleading nature of this entry. So it is a little frustrating that these changes to a more neutral and verifiable version of the entry are being undone on the basis of simply "removed sourced material". Saying something is sourced and providing a link is very obviously not the same as "accurately summarizing sources", the current version repeatedly cites sources and misrepresents them. If you wish to revert my edit, it seems only fair that you should give substantive reasons as to why my version is less neutral than the previous version. As it stands, I appear to be the only one giving reasons.

Best wishes,

PJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnolly123 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I've removed one sentence and the associated self-cites, but otherwise I don't really have an opinion on this. I actually came here expecting to see an accusation of virtue signalling. Very disappointed to see this is a content dispute. Thumbs down, disliked, unsubscribed. :P Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Of course, I'm flattered that some people think I've got any virtue to signal :D ——SerialNumber54129 21:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and all who helped, many named, for John/Eleanor Rykener, introduced: "Of John "also known as Eleanor" Rykener almost nothing is known; yet, in some ways, they are a relevant, if not modern, figure. Arrested by the City Watch for doing some curious business (in their eyes) with another man in a London backstreet on a Sunday evening in Winter 1394, Rykener's case is an important source for modern-day historians and sociologists studying late the medieval English understanding of, and approach to, sex and gender. I think they would be a worthy—if somewhat niche!—addition to the FA stable, and to that end I am very grateful for the support it has already received. Big shouts, particularly, must go out to the one like Usernameunique, for an extremely thorough GA review, and also to those stalwarts at Peer Review: picking up Brianboulton, Ceoil, J Milburn, Tim riley, et SchroCat.! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Arrested by the City Watch for doing some curious business … with another man in a London backstreet on a Sunday evening Because who among us can say they haven't been there once or twice in their life, amirite? :)

And, yes, definite kudos to all involved: great job on an important article! --Xover (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely Xover  :) Heh, moving on swiftly; remember the scholarship you pushed my way re. de Ross in Shakespeare? Well, I wonder if you'd be able to do something similar regarding this chap? You'll see the character already has a brief mention, but I'm sure there's much more, being a much bigger role. There's no need to go to all the trouble of précising what you find like you did before, I'll go through them anyway, and you said that was the most time-consuming bit. If you're too busy, by the way, no problem! Thanks again for everything, ——SerialNumber54129 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. No guarantees on timelyness. (addendum: but note that he may be hard to separate from the chaff about his grandson in Henry VIII). --Xover (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Or his son in Richard III. All three are just "Duke of Buckingham" in their respective plays. --Xover (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry Xover, I appreciate you looking; but don't bother if it's going to be a ball breaker. I'm sure you got better things to be doing  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well done, nice to see this article featured. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Usernameunique, you know you're probably more responsible than anyone for this. In other news, can you your candy ass moved along a bit, you got work elsewhere. ——SerialNumber54129 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm User:TheInnocentBystander. Regarding my edits to Parliament of 1327, I could not understand why it was reverted. I believe it was not a test. Could you please clarify? I apologize if a mistake was made. Thank you! --- User:TheInnocentBystander 12:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheInnocentBystander: Although I left you a message, I haven't edited the article since September last year. But in this edit you restored vandalism made by an IP made a couple of edits previously. ——SerialNumber54129 12:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The restoration of vandalism was not intentional. Thank you! --- User:TheInnocentBystander 04:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

At Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham you reverted an edit and offered this summary: "Undid revision 878100143 by Cinderella157 (talk) Or, to put it out another way, this kind of trolling has got yippy". This appears to be an accusation of trolling, which I would ask you to retract.

The edit I made reinstated a tag for inconsistency, the matter of which has not been addressed to a resolution and which I have tried to discuss with you at the talk page. Will you please reinste the tag or address the inconsistency. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: If you think that reinstating a year-old tag after the section—let alone the article—has been heavily edited and the talk page discussion addressed does not fall within the unadulterated parameter of...

I have no idea, after all this time, why you have never yet just been fucking bold and made your favoured edits yourself. Part of the problem is that you expound an inordinate amount of words—and presumably energy—but get no closer to clarity. So you demand, for instance, that "inconsistencies are addressed"—but do not deign to explain what you consider to be an inconsistency. A trifle Kafkaesque. It can never be resolved because no one is clear what has to be resolved.

If you, without the sources, write what you think it should say, then I—with the sources—can take your ideas into account and mould them around what we already know. And everyone—except, of course, those who merely wish to indulge themselves in tagbomberry—will be happy. ——SerialNumber54129 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: Re. If you, without the sources, write what you think it should say; consider it an exercise in precision, and try to keep it to less than three figures in wordage. ——SerialNumber54129 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks - Enjoy! Denisarona (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thirsty work, Denisarona, cheers! And a happy new year to you! ——SerialNumber54129 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The article Siege of Oxford (1142) 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:Siege of Oxford (1142) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not easily, but I can ask some of my contacts on Welsh Wikipedia. What article(s) are of interest? Deb (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marc Bloch 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, good old Marc Bloch! I remember reading La Société Féodale at university. Deb (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: In French, of course  ;) Merci bien pour ta dernier lettre! ——SerialNumber54129 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mais naturellement! Deb (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have just picked up my next assignment at WP:GOCE and settled down with a nice mug of cocoa to copy edit Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. I'm sure that I have seen it before somewhere. Can I assume that this no longer requires GOCE's tender attentions? (If it doesn't, could you let GOCE know?) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I forgot about that  :) do I just blank it or post on their talk? I'm sorry to waste your cocoa, Gog the Mild; I see I have Percy Glading a little further up the same page, although I grant that he may not be your cup of tea (or cocoa!). Thanks for the reminder though. ——SerialNumber54129 18:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I have notified the powers that be at GOCE and no doubt they will do whatever it is they do. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(←) Hi Serial Number 54129, in accordance with the above I've withdrawn the request for c/e; if this is not what you wanted, please feel free to replace the request. diff. You can always re-request it another time if you wish. For future reference, you can withdraw requests either by blanking the subsection, striking the request or posting on REQ talk. You can also swap out requests with another article if you wish, provided you've no more than two requests at any time. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Examples please of weasel words in Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair. Checking MOS I find no such in the article. Educate please. Oldperson (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've opened this up as a standalone section and linked the article in question. Ftr you don't need to ping people on their own user talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

From a very quick skim: According to one account <- Who's? and why is it significant? What is the source for The Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair was the first known prosecution for Breach of promise in colonial america and the first in which the defendant was a woman? It's not repeated in the body of the article, and it's a quite extraordinary claim, indeed [:)] it's the article's claim of significance. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I liked that 'Indeed, Mr rnddude  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 18:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the user is a previously banned user that has made a concerted effort over the years to push POV edits. Thank you for the effort to monitor. Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Koncorde, I agree that that's a pretty common M.O. isn't it, particularly the regional-centricism. ——SerialNumber54129 18:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Damn. Glasgow has a subway? We barely have a couple bus lines here. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: they only got permission to build it by telling the good citizens of Glasgow that it was to be an underground beer cellar  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Smart thinking. Speaking of beer cellars, you should see the liquor cabinet in my new truck. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Regular refills of single malt?! There must be some serious pay-check augmentation in moving from Beowulf to Rilke ;) ——SerialNumber54129 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm leaving this for you and your talk page stalkers: India Book of Records. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear all. Recently, our community lost a dedicated user, Flooded with them hundreds (talk). Among their projects were a number of user scripts that were deleted when they left. I (DannyS712) have asked that they be undeleted, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import Flooded's (deleted) script, and I thought that you might want to import a working version. Links to each script are provided below.

Page Mover Closure

Section Remover

Section Mover

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ignaxiouslow seems to have made some mischievous edits to “Singapore University of Social Sciences”. This seems to be an attack based on my edits in “Singapore Institute of Technology”. Please look into it. Thank you. Applepineapple (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Applepineapple: It's become less of an issue in recent times, but thanks very much for the notes and for keeping an eye on things there! ——SerialNumber54129 17:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please explain the revert? All content added in are universal to other Singaporean University pages. I am careful not to add in things that are unneccessary— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaxiouslow (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 Jny 2019 (UTC)

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
258		Bologna massacre (talk)	Add sources
26		László Bárdossy (talk)	Add sources
334		British Free Corps (talk)	Add sources
10		Italicus Express bombing (talk)	Add sources
235		Kidnapping of Aldo Moro (talk)	Add sources
843		Khalid ibn al-Walid (talk)	Add sources
18		452 (talk)	Cleanup
292		Human Rights Campaign (talk)	Cleanup
29		Women of Colonial Virginia (talk)	Cleanup
956		Lega Nord (talk)	Expand
163		Terrorism in Germany (talk)	Expand
11		AD 65 (talk)	Expand
25		800 BC (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
7,326		Nuremberg trials (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
366		I'm Alan Partridge (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
205		Social media addiction (talk)	Merge
84		Reflections of signals on conducting lines (talk)	Merge
75		Ryan White CARE Act (talk)	Merge
9		Battle of Mauron (talk)	Wikify
36		Zealot Temple Siege (talk)	Wikify
238		Climate of Italy (talk)	Wikify
3		Fulvio Croce (talk)	Orphan
4		Harald Kleinschmidt (talk)	Orphan
5		Mahesh Paudyal (talk)	Orphan
611		Dolly Wells (talk)	Stub
2		Henri de Montigny (talk)	Stub
3		Bertrand I of L'Isle-Jourdain (talk)	Stub
34		Years of Lead (talk)	Stub
5		Korolevo (talk)	Stub
8		Caput baroniae (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeees...I favoured K as being more in keeping with the time ...

Is this not a statement of preference by you? You now cite Rawcliffe where you have not done so previously and having preferred Catherine despite Rawcliffe in earlier versions of the article? Old bones? I simply make the point that all of the sources I can see are for "Catherine" and your reversal to "Katherine" is (until now) unexplained wrt the "specific" sources per "this" K|Catherine. You are "not personally wedded" to either? the important thing is consistency backed by a source - your words However, I would say, "don't imply a source says other than what it does".

As to WP:ASPERSIONS, I perceive this to be something of WP:POT. See most recently here, let alone elsewhere, which I believe rise beyond aspersions. Perhaps you might consider retracting your most recent comments at Buckingham's FAC page?

Per "tweaks", I was being polite. As to actionable (as just an example): Spellings differed because during this period written English was intended to reflect the spoken language;[168] for instance—in the case of Buckingham's daughter—between the Anglo-Norman "Katherine" and the later medieval "Katherine".

Do you see the issue?

I had hoped that your acknowledging your previous error might have heralded a way forward to improve the article collaboratively. Your recent comments appear aggressive (to the point of incivility?), which is disappointing to me.

You asked me to propose an edit to the family section, which I did, despite your obligation as the FAC nom. I did this, acknowledging that it was incomplete. I am happy to collaborate with you "civilly" to improve the article. Are you prepared to do so? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

. The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check" with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

I got quite a shock when your response to my calling a 'death squad' by its name. Your claim that they were supposed to "suppress counterrevolutionary actions" is simply Marxist code for death squad. Their method was to enter a village and immediately hang the nearest person they found. They ran "revolutionary tribunals" and were not in any way better than say, the Cambodian killers. They were a real death squad, no doubt about it. I fail to understand your attempt to whitewash them! vitéz 17:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

Hello Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero One, you were involved in an AfD whose result presumed notability for all railway stations, just as we previously did for schools. You might be interested in this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station. There are currently 2,800 articles written about the 8,500 railway stations in India. Two thousand of those are stubs and several hundred are single-source sub-stubs. The inclusionists point to Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations as policy that mandates notability, but I don't read it that way. Rhadow (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

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

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I have one query re. Note 17 which reads: "At 32 millimetres, this gun, says Burke, "was a significant alteration to existing treaties limiting the size of naval guns"; the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, between the victors of the World War, had limited their size to 13 inches (330 mm), which was confirmed by a subsequent treaty."[83]

I applied WP's conversion template to 13 inches which converts to 330 mm. The 32 mm mentioned at the start of the note converts to 1.3 inches. Something is amiss. The 32 mm would appear to be a typo.

Congratulations on getting this article to Good Article status. Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I got your ping from yesterday, but I think it would be best not to comment in that thread - even to make a little joke of some kind - in the (vain?) hope that if no one else replies further, they'll stopped digging. Ta. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem Floquenbeam, sensible policies for a happier Wiki. ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Serial Number 54129 once again, noticed that this page Singapore Management University is written like an advertisement. Need your help please. Thank you. :) — Preceding User:Applepineapple comment added by User:Applepineapple (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Applepineapple: I would feel a trifle more sympathetic to your efforts if you had not begun socking. Sadness. ——SerialNumber54129

Don't reverse my AfC accept like you did on Operation_Höss. That page was ready for G13 when I found. If you really think it should not be in mainspace AfD is that a way but the page is in much better shape than most pages and would never be deleted so should not be sent back to draft. Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't like being called out on your incompetence, Legacypac, then don't do fucking incompetence in the first place. Expecting me— or anyone, frankly—to take the blindest bit of notice of anything you say merely reiterates the point. ——SerialNumber54129 07:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My incompetence? Wow - a move like the one you made goes against all policy on Draftification. Where would you like to discuss this then? Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Arkell vs Pressdram will make profitable reading. ——SerialNumber54129 07:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I never have found out whether Arkell actually profited from that action, or whether it was just the lawyers who gained, as is common. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Eh, eh, eh, eh, eh .... calm down, calm down Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The remarks posted here are not clear in to whom they are addressed, especially as they refer either to a disconnected topic (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY), not referred to in any of the above comments, or to an information page (WP:FREESPEECH), the validity of which is also not under scrutiny, or, worst of all, to a veiled menace (Take care!, exclamation mark included, italics mine), missing any allegation of a concrete misbehaviour.

I want to state explicitly that, regardless whether I am addressed or not, I perceive these remarks as an uncalled for, serious derailment, directed against well behaved manner, fully de rigeur. (I do not refer to the second indecent remark there.)

I do not expect any specific reaction, however hope to stay unmolested from such unguided offenses in the future. Purgy (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Purgy Purgatorio; such a depth of miscomprehension I have not encountered for a while. Do I gather, through your pseudo-legalese—which, for clarity, incidentally, make my remarks appear crystal clear—that you wish me to stop referring editors to Wikipedia information pages as an exercise in their enlightenment? Clearly, I will—not. ——SerialNumber54129 18:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

H'mmm, on reflection, I'm less surprised; it's little over a year since Iridescent was minded to warn you regarding personal attacks. While what you have written here does not yet amount to a such an attack, it's probably indicative of the above-mentioned communication isue. ——SerialNumber54129 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hey Serial Number, please do not urge Izzy to take their "harassment" case to ANI. There are enough frivolous threads at ANI without adding more. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you; it was less an encouragement and more—an advisory, and one said, I assure you, in a completely toneless voice. ——SerialNumber54129 18:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Guys. I have posted what I hope is my final contribution on this matter on my own talk page. Can we let the matter rest there, please?. best wishes. Izzy (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's the problem with mentions of harrasment; they're—so very easy to misunderstand, and yet get taken—quite rightlyo—very seriously. ——SerialNumber54129 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As I see it, Izzy expressed an opinion that 250 people disagreed with and got blowback for it. If you're in that situation, you must make your argument watertight and incredibly convincing (for homework, imagine what the response would be if I went to the Daily Express comments section and said "I think Brexit is a rubbish idea"). Any talk about "free speech" is a red herring; this is a private website and there are things you should definitely not say on Wikipedia (try saying "I'd like to upload my collection of child pornography to Commons, what's the best category to use" and see how far "free speech" gets you when the police pay you a visit). I think my frustration here is that Izzy has a track record of working on articles and cleaning up British political BLPs (as, for that matter, has SN54129), so to get sidetracked onto this "he said, she said" nonsense is a gigantic time sink. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That is such terrible advice, I hope nobody follows it. The notion that if you disagree with 250 people you "must" make your argument "watertight and incredibly convincing" is nakedly advocating for mob mentality ("You better be damn right, or else don't disagree with the majority!"). Comparing an oppose !vote at an RfA with a public admission of engaging in child pornography is more ad hitlerum than an actual ad hitlerum. Free speech is not just some law, it's a moral and ethical value, and one that is widely shared around the world; I don't think everyone agrees that Wikipedia is somehow exempt. I'm shocked at the squelching and badgering of oppose votes (and not just Izzys, but all three) by very experienced editors and admin. ^Leviv_ich 16:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:, I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood all of my points. Logically following the premise of "That is such terrible advice, I hope nobody follows it" implies you should instead write "Oppose - candidate is a fucking asshole. I will not reply to badgering". I wasn't comparing an oppose !vote at RfA with anything, I was simply saying that there are some things that you cannot claim free speech for, and gave a blatantly over-the-top example. I don't understand what "nakedly advocating for mob mentality" means, but I'm simply paraphrasing what Paul Graham says in his "How to disagree" essay. For example, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JJMC89 you can see I !voted "oppose" with a well-reasoned argument, and my opinion didn't match the eventual consensus. Yet it wasn't challenged by anybody. Aim for DH6 and refute the central point. For example, I think Brexit will be an economic disaster and lead to increased unemployment, hunger and poverty. If you want to challenge that, you need to bring hard evidence and facts, not just say "you lost, get over it" or "shut up, remoaner" which is about the usual DH0 level of discourse I get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: There were like 200 support !votes that brought no hard evidence or facts (mine included), yet nobody challenged that. If only unsupported oppose !votes are challenged, that would be a double standard. The hierarchy of disagreement is great and all, but an editor should be free to say "I oppose because of my gut feeling" or "I oppose for no reason at all" without being warned by an admin for it. Other editors are free to ignore or discount such !votes, they do no harm. Squelching disagreement, on the other hand, does a lot of harm; that's why freedom of thought is such a cherished value worldwide (and, um, kind of the raison d'être of Wikipedia, don't you think?). People shouldn't be discouraged from voicing opposition just because that opposition is unpopular, or because they don't have a rock-solid argument. And really, look at the RfA page right now, then look at the RfA's talk page, and ask yourself: if the talk page stuff were moved back into the RfA page, would that make the page more or less disruptive? Healthier or less healthy? ^Leviv_ich 18:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I certainly remember getting a bit of blowback at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2 from some of the supporters, but in general I have opposed at tens of RfAs without issue. I certainly remember TonyBallioni said "that's fine, no hard feelings" after I opposed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cameron11598 (and, as you can see, I even badgered a support !voter!) As for why you shouldn't say "I oppose because of my gut feeling", well two reasons: 1) The candidate doesn't get any feedback about how they can improve as an editor 2) If you can claim free speech, other people can claim their right of reply as equal free speech, and that leads to a load of pointless arguing. I took your advice and looked at the RfA's talk page and thought "what an utterly pointless load of dramah and wasting of time that would have been better spent writing the encylopedia". And with that, I'm going to grab my book source for Kenwood House and do a bit more work on it. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You too, Ritchie333. Thanks to SN for lending some room on his talk page. ^Leviv_ich 19:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see your problem here. Try something more like: Take care! Mr rnddude (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's a nice video about freedom of speech.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, just returned from traveling. Regarding the referencing style, I have mostly written a Python program that takes articles with a mishmash of styles and converts them to the one I use. The program is on my laptop, not for a bot; I dunno how to use bots. But ping me if you have a huge mess to convert. Hope things are going well! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hahahah. I'd forgotten you were Muffled Pocketed.[4] Thanks for the reminder! 👏 Bishonen | talk 14:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Hi User:Serial Number 54129, I'm just need your help, since all of this page below was warned to deleted... Please give me some couple of minutes to explained it... So it start with Richie Campbell he warned every pages such as historical pages to be deleted soon. Please make it right, since I did not really know whats wrong with it... I'm just to afraid that all of this pages was deleted so easily beside knowing first what he's reporting to be deleted is right or not. By the way It's not only happen just in my country pages, but also in other countries pages that relate with the topic of pageantry.Some of that pages are:

• Indonesia at major male beauty pageants
• South Africa at major male beauty pageants
• China at major male beauty pageants
• India at major male beauty pageants
• Lebanon at major male beauty pageants
• Philippines at major male beauty pageants
• Singapore at major male beauty pageants
• South Korea at major male beauty pageants
• Sri Lanka at major male beauty pageants
• Thailand at major male beauty pageants
• Turkey at major male beauty pageants
• Vietnam at major male beauty pageants
• Belgium at major male beauty pageants
• France at major male beauty pageants
• Germany at major male beauty pageants
• Great Britain at major male beauty pageants
• Greece at major male beauty pageants
• Netherlands at major male beauty pageants
• Spain at major male beauty pageants
• Spain at major male beauty pageants
• Sweden at major male beauty pageants
• Brazil at major male beauty pageants
• Canada at major male beauty pageants
• United States at major male beauty pageants
• Venezuela at major male beauty pageants
• Australia at major male beauty pageants
• New Zealand at major male beauty pageants
• AND MANY MORE!!!

Why is it consider deletion? since any other country has the same page about male pageant, but I just wanted to create the one for my beloved country, Indonesia. And what i used for making this page is the based sources on Wikipedia as well, which the credibility is already checked, this is such a honour for male pageant, together with Indonesia at major beauty pageants, Philippines at major beauty pageants, United States at major beauty pageants, France at major beauty pageants, Australia at major beauty pageants, India at major beauty pageants, Thailand at major beauty pageants and many more countries with this kind of historical page with the topic of international beauty pageants. this page that I was created was made by credible and already checked by Wikipedia admins also there's a lot of publiched page with the same topic with many kind of languages, this is some of the credible already checked stable page such as:

• Daftar peserta asal Indonesia di kontes kecantikan internasional
• Manhunt International 1995Jerome Giuseppe (talk) Until the last year of Manhunt International 2018
• Mister International 2006Jerome Giuseppe (talk) Until the last year of Manhunt International 2018
• Mister Global 2014Jerome Giuseppe (talk) Until the last year of Mister Global 2018
• Mister Supranational 2017Jerome Giuseppe (talk) Until the last year of Mister Supranational 2018
• and many sources that wikipedia already created for International male pageants. You can search it for your own information and research studies.

And then I just need to know what's wrong with this page? since any other country also has the same topic page as well as to know that it not fair for Indonesian who's joining this pageant so long time ago but then Wikipedia did not wanted to recognize us by deleting such as this historical memo of my beloved country Indonesia, you should check the other page as well, such as:

• South Africa at major male beauty pageants
• China at major male beauty pageants
• India at major male beauty pageants
• Lebanon at major male beauty pageants
• Philippines at major male beauty pageants
• Singapore at major male beauty pageants
• South Korea at major male beauty pageants
• Sri Lanka at major male beauty pageants
• Thailand at major male beauty pageants
• Turkey at major male beauty pageants
• Vietnam at major male beauty pageants
• Belgium at major male beauty pageants
• France at major male beauty pageants
• Germany at major male beauty pageants
• Great Britain at major male beauty pageants
• Greece at major male beauty pageants
• Netherlands at major male beauty pageants
• Spain at major male beauty pageants
• Spain at major male beauty pageants
• Sweden at major male beauty pageants
• Brazil at major male beauty pageants
• Canada at major male beauty pageants
• United States at major male beauty pageants
• Venezuela at major male beauty pageants
• Australia at major male beauty pageants
• New Zealand at major male beauty pageants
• AND MANY MORE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Giuseppe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to explain why you used rollback to undo my revert at the Teahouse? Although not answering their question directly, it probably saved them a bit of work. And more answers were surely about to come. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: I had to use rollback, otherwise I would have had to use an edit-summary :p ^[FBDB] ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Take a good look here then...those things might happen if you try to avoid using edit-summaries ;). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Quite. Actually, that was a joke. It was an accidental rollback which I had rectified the same moment you posted here. Many thanks for the note anyhow. Bye. ——SerialNumber54129 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I know...no worries...that's why I used the ;). Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry you took my feedback to you as badgering. I do apologise that it came across as that, as I honestly intended to point out to you that there was a flaw in your logic. From your reaction, it's clear that you see it differently and I'm sorry that my comment has caused you some distress. That was not what I had intended to achieve. Hence my apologies. Schwede66 08:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for your input and edits on the UCHealth article. Very helpful and valuable. Would you reconsider a few of your deletions?

1) The Magnet recognition was included in a similar way to other Hospital articles I found, like University of Colorado Hospital, Summa St. Thomas Hospital, and Yale New Haven Hospital. Would "UCHealth Poudre Valley Hospital has received Magnet accreditation by American Nurses Credentialing Center in 2000, 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2018?" be agreeable to you?

2) The locations/facilities list was similar to other health system articles, like UMass Memorial Health Care, Children's Health (health care system), and NewYork–Presbyterian Healthcare System. Can you let me know if there's a reason UCHealth facilities should not be listed, or which template I should follow?

As far as the other content that was deleted, there was back-and-forth with @DDG about it. He eventually replaced what I removed. Those edits are cool if you think they make the page better. D'Nezzy Smith (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I OS'd it just in case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate that, PMC, I wasn't sure if it deserved it. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 13:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's my issue. This diff here says "take it to the talk page". Not "stop vandalising the article", "stop introducing copyvios" or "stop introducing blatant BLP violations". That signals to me that the IPs edits can't in good conscience be covered under WP:3RRNO or WP:VANDALISM (and the essay I linked to, WP:DOLT, explains my actions - specifically, "Never unblank biographies without asking why the IP might be blanking it."). And that means to be fair, the only options available are a) do nothing and let you carry on reverting b) block everyone who goes over 3RR (which would include yourself) or c) full lock the article and start a discussion on talk. a) is not productive, b) if I blocked you for 24 hours for "violating 3RR" I think the heavens would tremble. So that leaves c). It's not personal, it's just the way I interpret policy in this instance. The locked version is on the status quo with all the sourced information present. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I rather wish you had have done that, trembling heavens or nay; you would have had a batallion few people lining up on your talk telling you don't know what you're bloody doing, whereas this way, it's only me...Anyhow, I'm unwatchlisting it; someone else can clear up when it kicks off again in 24. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you kindly give a rough estimate about how many have been awarded this; since it's inception? And, do you think an awarding of a CBE to automatically entitle him/her to a standalone wiki-bio? ∯WBG^converse 08:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Approximately 100 people per year. Specifically for CBE (and not the lower-ranking OBE and MBE), the awarding of one is a strong indication of notability in Wikipedia terms, since they're only given out to people at the top of their field. ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I got that figure of ~100/yearsomewhere but was wondering whether the rate has been same throughout (since 1917)....... Whilst, the records of the last two decades are easily accessible; I can't go beyond that span. ∯WBG^converse 08:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

From our own article, the order is limited to 8,960 Commanders, so 100 per year would seem about right to replace wastage through deaths and resignations. Without checking the figures, I'd imagine there were significant spikes in 1919, 1946 and 1954 but otherwise the rate of people being appointed has remained fairly constant. ‑ Iridescent 08:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi SN, can you revert this close please? You can't possibly close an AfD within a couple of hours with a supervote? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, No.

Not a supervote: the nominator fail[ed] to advance any argument for deletion...only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommend[ed] that the page be deleted. Now, of I'd mentioned that the topic clearly indicated its notability, that would have been a supervote; but I didn't. Even though it clearly does  :) I hoping you will not mind if I request that you do not—even accidentally—ascribe some bad faith just because you do not like the close. You might try your luck at WP:DRV, of course; but think WP:RENOM would suit you better. Thanks for the message!——SerialNumber54129 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Can you fix the close? It was speedy deleted a few hours after you closed it as speedy keep, which is confusing --DannyS712 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that. The thing is, they're two different things, and the AfD close is the result of that particular discussion; what occurs later is generally not relevant to the close itself. However, there's nothing to stop me (or anyone!) adding a footnote to the event.

I see it was tagged and speedied as a blatant copyvio. Not sure I agree with that: it may have been heavy enough on quotes to qualify, but by that nature, is that particularly "blatant"? I think a broader discussion might have been called for; still, the page was the focus of much political drama, so that doubtless had something to do with it.

Thanks for the message, DannyS712. ——SerialNumber54129 10:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The close was technically good but it's the first time I saw a speedy kept article being speedy deleted hours later:-)

On the points of copyright; I hazily remember Sphilbrick commenting on a similar occasion that excessive quote-farming (even with attribution) does violate our in-house copyright rules. ∯WBG^converse 12:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, it could be both a violation and not blatant. But I don't insist on the distinction: it was (is!) such a politicised article that it was only ever going to be a magnet for refighting the war. Ironically, if the AfD had had a decent nomination, I prbably would've !voted delete on those very—somewhere between WP:ATADD andWP:IAR I suspect—grounds. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 12:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, @Blades, have a gander at WP:BN's latest request when you get a minute. The cajones on some people :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Look before you leap. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Is there any reason you feel the need to restore the trolling of an LTA who has just been blocked by Favonian per WP:DENY? Seriously?? And, since it wasn't blatant vandalism, that was a misuse of rollback on your part; for my part WP:BMB is policy. So either you will roll yourself back... or I will :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Why Are People Grudgeful?  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And I see that User:Natureium has asked the same question. ——SerialNumber54129 10:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

...and got no reply :D ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vale Royal Abbey 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 Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded in appreciation of your input to and support for Siege of Berwick (1333) all the way from GAN to FAC. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That's very kind Gog, thanks very much. How's it going—must be nearly there by now? Hope all is well! ——SerialNumber54129 14:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Things are good thanks. How is RL for you? Yes, it got promoted last night; my second FA and the first I wrote from scratch - well, cough, excepting your doubling of it in size, which is what really made it as a promotable article.

45 minutes after it was promoted I got an A class medal and 4 hours after that my first Four Award. I am new enough to Wikipedia to find this reasonably exciting.

I am about to have a disagreement over the MoS in an ACR - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Midland Railway War Memorial - with an editor vastly more experienced than me. If you felt like casting your own experienced eyes over it, if only so you can tell me that I am being an idiot, it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Go carefully with the butter Gog :) yes, I see great things are happening, congratulations! Re. the Memorial—no, I think your original reading was correct. Apologies for tardiness, I would have got there sooner, but I was a little tied up elsewhere  :) but it's really great when these things get discussed in a civilised manner and then resolved so peacefully. Hence my barb about dramaboard tricoteuses! Thanks for the BS again, it reminds me to update the—currently in a somewhat Miss Havisham-style state of disrepair—trophy cabinet. ——SerialNumber54129 22:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Moi? Buerre? Je ne comprends pas.

Oh yes. We live in exciting times.

Good. You seemed prompt enough to me. I was a little concerned I may find my head in a basket, but it all worked out in a civilised manner.

You seem very busy with FACs of late. No danger of running out of English dukes I suppose. I did an image review while I was browsing it. If I get time over the weekend I'll do a full review. Interesting article.

Quite right. Get your duster out and get the place organised. One should always dress for dinner.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)