User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Serial Number 54129. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
Hi from the Resource Exchange
Regarding your Daily Worker request, TrangaBellam is a valuable Wikipedian, but sometimes over promisses on resource requests. They also have a history of being uncommunicative there. Alas, I don't have ready access to the source.
- It would help volunteers if you briefly explained in your request why you want to see those pages - at least what article(s) you hope to improve. Without more of a hint about what you hope to find on "an unknown page", volunteers would have to send you every page from 6 February 1937.
- There's an open suggestion that The Wikipedia Library add UK Pressonline as a partner, which you could support by upvoting it. At least nine new partners have been added recently.
Regarding your Index request, I find your response to Doc Taxon a little difficult to understand. Are you saying you still need to know what pages are listed for "Green, Henrietta" in the book's index (if it has one), excluding pages in the "Food and produce" section (which she wrote), because you suspect the other authors have discussed her somewhere else in the book?
- I don't have ready access to a library that holds the book, nor do I know of a regular RX volunteer (other than Doc Taxon) who might. However, used copies of the book can be delivered to the UK, US, or Germany for about ₤/$/€ 10 from abebooks, Amazon, zvab, and others. That might be your fastest and most reliable way to get the information, if it's worth that to you.
Good Luck! -- Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Worldbruce, thanks very much for the information! I have undertaken several actions on account of your update. I have marked the Daily Worker request as grudgingly "resolved", as I doubt it would have added much, and it's almost a primary source in any case. Thanks for the links to the phab tickets. I'm not sure I found the Pressonline one, ironically, but I have upvoted and subscribed to a few. Re. Green: have clarified my comment to Doc, hopefully something might work out after all.I appreciate your last comment, but I am banned from buying any more books :) ——Serial Number 54129 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.
Our current top scorers are as follows:
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.
Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Neville (died 1460), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Ross.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 12:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thos wood, cont
- @Hilst: What? Wikipedia:Recent additions says it should be up from 1200–2359, but it's not there. Nor are any of its fellows. Has there been a minor fuck up somewhere? Surely (A) is what should be on the page, per Wikipedia:Recent additions; but (B) is what actually is on it? ——Serial Number 54129 21:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- That hook was part of a manual update (DYKUpdateBot was down at the time). The credits weren't given out by the admins that updated T:DYK, so I'm doing them now. –
Hilst [talk]21:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- That hook was part of a manual update (DYKUpdateBot was down at the time). The credits weren't given out by the admins that updated T:DYK, so I'm doing them now. –
- Thanks Hilst, I'm not accusing you of anything. But I don't understand why something that is meant to be on the MP right now... isn't? And all the other stuff... Andaman islands, Cox etc? ——Serial Number 54129 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not meant to be on the Main Page right now. Bot down → an admin has to manually update the template for set X → they do it, but don't do the credits → bot is restarted 12hrs later and does the next update for set Y, as usual → someone brings up the fact that the credits for set X weren't done → we are here. –
Hilst [talk]21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- @Hilst: So what is meant to be on the Main Page right now?! Or, putting it another way, when was/will Tommy Wood be onDYK? I remain, sir, clueless! 🤔 ——Serial Number 54129 21:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- The current set on the Main Page is the right one! Tommy Wood has already been on the MP, in the previous set, which went live at 00:21, 3 April 2024! –
Hilst [talk]21:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- The current set on the Main Page is the right one! Tommy Wood has already been on the MP, in the previous set, which went live at 00:21, 3 April 2024! –
- @Hilst: So what is meant to be on the Main Page right now?! Or, putting it another way, when was/will Tommy Wood be onDYK? I remain, sir, clueless! 🤔 ——Serial Number 54129 21:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not meant to be on the Main Page right now. Bot down → an admin has to manually update the template for set X → they do it, but don't do the credits → bot is restarted 12hrs later and does the next update for set Y, as usual → someone brings up the fact that the credits for set X weren't done → we are here. –
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello Serial Number 54129,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, if you don't want to review this nomination, please let Serial Number 54129 know on the nomination template; they seem to be ready to step aside in your favor after your post there, but I think they're waiting for you to say yes or no, which is delaying what is now one of the oldest unapproved DYK nominations (two months minus one day). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:. To clarify: I should let myself know if I don't want to review the nom, and I'm ready to step aside in my own favor? Check! ;) ——Serial Number 54129 12:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you today for Order of Brothelyngham, introduced:
- A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check.
- A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check.
- Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check.
- A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check.
- Welcome to 14th-century England—again! Another curious gem displaying the past through an alternative lens, this reached GA-level some years ago and then got forgotten about, which is a shame. Having undergone an expansion, polish and update in scholarship, I thought it was worth presenting here." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Have a nice day
I have some serious doubts about that editor. Their article creations smack of promotional editing, and--you can't see this, sorry--they also moved highly promotional drafts like Sani Usman Kunya into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Perihan Çınar
Hi! May I kindly ask you what happened to my DYK-nom? CeeGee 07:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
General
@Serial Number 54129 I hope you will be less aggressive and as kind and respectful in your comments to a middle school boy like me in future. I assume good faith and favour the retention of the article Where is Kate? for the longer term. In any case, it was I who brought her article to GA status and also garnered more views for her hook than any other in January, coinciding with her 42nd birthday. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @MSincccc. My dear fellow! I do apologise! But please; where was I aggressive to you on that page? I admit to agreeing with the Ignatius chap, but that was over an important issue of clarity.Although now you mention her article's GA status, it seems that @Aintabli has noticed a similar pattern to myself regarding your occasionally excessive claims regarding 'authorship' of an article—e.g.,—which often seem not to equate to actual 'involvement' in it. Anyway. All the best, and keep up the good work! ——Serial Number 54129 17:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I have 4.2% of the article attributed to myself and have been actively editing it for the past 2 years. What Aintabli mentioned at the time was relevant as I was then not among the top five authors, but now I am. I have contributed to 5% of William's article being its fourth highest author. Anyone who has a place among the top 5 of a page in terms of authorship is a major contributor as such. Also I am working actively on that page. Its not possible for everyone who actively edits a page to have 10% or more of the article under his authorship. Hence the fact that I am among the top 5 authors is justified. I honestly appreciate any changes as long as they have the support of the community. Well lets hope to collaborate in future and work towards quality and accuracy. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TPSs: (Having let the infernal AfD close first) the aggression MSincccc suggests was aimed at him must refer to either my saying
Absolutely, IgnatiusofLondon, and thanks for pointing that out
—pretty bland!—or the deboulding that went with it, a purely stylistic alteration which neither refactored MSincccc's words nor attacked his views. Curious, and verging on the aspersive. ——Serial Number 54129 12:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)- @Serial Number 54129 Let's bury the hatchet and move on. Apologies for any unintentional hurt caused by my words. Let's hope to collaborate in the future. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TPSs: (Having let the infernal AfD close first) the aggression MSincccc suggests was aimed at him must refer to either my saying
- Well, I have 4.2% of the article attributed to myself and have been actively editing it for the past 2 years. What Aintabli mentioned at the time was relevant as I was then not among the top five authors, but now I am. I have contributed to 5% of William's article being its fourth highest author. Anyone who has a place among the top 5 of a page in terms of authorship is a major contributor as such. Also I am working actively on that page. Its not possible for everyone who actively edits a page to have 10% or more of the article under his authorship. Hence the fact that I am among the top 5 authors is justified. I honestly appreciate any changes as long as they have the support of the community. Well lets hope to collaborate in future and work towards quality and accuracy. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The grass
is always greener . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 13:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Recusal?
Hi, it's been nearly 36 hours and nobody else has mentioned it, including any of the potential parties. On what grounds do you think I should recuse? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 March 2024
- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
Inter Milan - RN
Hi, I welcome the tidying up exercise you have just done. I need to ask if it is ok to amend my initial oppose to provide the more detailed policy references I have made in one of the hatted sections? The user concerned is relatively new and an obviously enthusiastic football only editor. I have encouraged him to look at the previous "no change" rationales and wider perspective but I'm not convinced he has done so. For the benefit of ensuring visibility of the associated policy / guidelines for other contributors to this RN, can I move the relevant text currently under the final hidden section to my original "O"? Advice appreciated, please. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Leaky caldron, thanks for message. First things first: you don't need my advice or permission for anything. If you think it was over the top (bathwater/baby together), then adjust, reduce or revert my hatting as you see fit. Absolutely no hard feelings. You did a good job trying to get them up to speed, though I suspect IDHT might apply. Nowt wrong with effervescence. Perhaps it's been too long since I was effervescent about anything! Happy Sunday :) ——Serial 16:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've been around long enough, I should know. But I'm a bit more thoughtful and less confrontational these days. Cheers. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2024
- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Reader
"Old school villain" sounds... informal, and a bit too much of an opinion. How would you feel about "gangster" or "criminal" ? DS (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @DragonflySixtyseven: It always amazes me, the leaps that Wikipedia allows us to make, and so quickly... I mean, who would have thought one could get from Ababio IV in draftspace to Brian Reader in mainspace like that...? ;) :) ——Serial 19:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- With a quick stop at "hm, don't recognize that name, wonder who that is, let me look at their contributions", yes. DS (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Quite! Anyway, combined with SchroCat mentioning it on the article talk page, your suggestion here, and me knowing it would be eventually moved but preferring to write the thing than get bogged down in discussions, I think we can take it that Brian Reader (criminal) has probably established consensus... ——Serial 19:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- With a quick stop at "hm, don't recognize that name, wonder who that is, let me look at their contributions", yes. DS (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Resource request status
Do you still need the Smith source you asked for at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_157#A Useful Fiction: Adventures in British Democracy? If so, I can send you a pdf if you email me so that I can reply with an attachment. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Sorry for the hassle, this is about the RfA of 0xDeadbeef. Fermiboson (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see the point in opening a noticeboard filing against another editor (and, all due respect, it really was, whatever caveats swooned covered it) if one is merely going to not only close it almost immediately, but then archive it at subsequent request. It's just wasting time, tbh. But no worries, and thanks for the heads up, however unnecessary it turned out to be :) Serial 19:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, everything comes to a natural end, and with this, a 'new-if-equally-tiny-in-the-great-scheme' chapter begins. My respect for Lourdes has certainly increased—now sharing the pantheon with Edgar181 as they do—but I'm rather surprised (slightly dismayed, actually), that so many editors—including the illustrious, the great and the good—never realised the likelihood. The dogs on the street suspected this. Personally, I always assumed Quillercouch. Jusqu'ici tout va bien Wikipedia :) Serial 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Help with identifying a file
Hey, I noticed you uploaded this file. Would you mind providing some details about the location of the pub so that I can properly categorise the file and give it a more descriptive name when I move it to Commons? Thank you, —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 14:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Matr1x-101: no problem at all. It's the bar of the Railway Tavern, 131 Angel Lane, London E15 1DB (you've already got the pub exterior, courtesy of User:Oxyman), the entrance is on the corner ([1]). Hope this helps. Anything I can do, just ask! Serial 14:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Um, well, that is impressive! I hope you will contribute to At the Drop of a Hat, At the Drop of Another Hat, and any of the other F&S articles! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Ssilvers. Actually, I'm embarrassed now that people will think I'm some sort of nutter. Or just even more so, perhaps. Are you a F&S fan yourself? I came across the song while looking at British stereotypes in another article, and one thing led to another. But it does touch on many different themes: self-perception, nationalisms, anti-nationalisms, satire, contemporary politics, the 1960s... quite good fun, but pretty rough, too. I totally get your "Um" :)And thanks for your edits to the page just now! Serial 17:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly an F&S fan. I'm a Gilbert and Sullivan fan and have also contributed to the F&S shows since F&S a literary descendant of G&S. But I certainly never did the depth of research that you did. From a quick look at your article, I'd say that a lot of the stuff that you say about F&S generally ought to be incorporated into the other F&S articles as background there. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the impressive canon of G&S on your page just now. We did Trial by Jury at school; I still love the line, "...in the dusk with the light behind her"! OK, good idea re. the background stuff, and thanks for the encouragement. Serial 18:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly an F&S fan. I'm a Gilbert and Sullivan fan and have also contributed to the F&S shows since F&S a literary descendant of G&S. But I certainly never did the depth of research that you did. From a quick look at your article, I'd say that a lot of the stuff that you say about F&S generally ought to be incorporated into the other F&S articles as background there. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Bis :)
Hi, in this edit to A Song of Patriotic Prejudice you introduced several sfn references that were not defined, adding the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If oyu could fix these it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you realize that you just reverted all the careful edits I made to the article today? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn't it just the {{cn}}? I addressed that with ODNB, well-spotted. Serial 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. Now I've gone through and tried to reinstate my edits. Please review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Very sorry, Ssilvers, I didn't get an edit-conflict alert. Thanks for doing that though! Serial 11:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. Now I've gone through and tried to reinstate my edits. Please review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn't it just the {{cn}}? I addressed that with ODNB, well-spotted. Serial 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
RSN
I'm genuinely sorry if you felt that my comments at RSN were not helpful or constructive. That was not my intention. My apologies. Banks Irk (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, overreaction on my part too. all the best, Serial 10:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
File:'This user misses Slim Virgin' final.png
Hello. Why do you think that the file can be on Wikipedia, but not on Commons? — Ирука13 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hullo. No broader appeal, I suppose, pretty much en.wp-specific, but you do what you want of course. Serial 10:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
FAC review
Hi Serial, I have completed my responses to your review comments for FAC Adamson Tannehill. I know the article hasn't been the easiest to review. Is there more to come, or has the article been rejected? Thanks very much for your very helpful comments! Tfhentz (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Tfhentz: I've replied there. Apologies for the delay. Serial 15:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Coord discussion
Hi -- I thought I'd take this here rather than WT:FAC, though we can move it back there if you feel that's more appropriate. I'm sorry to say I'm really not sure what I said that came across as a put-down -- do you mean the comments about length of service? If so it really wasn't meant that way, and I can comment there to that effect if you'd like me to. I just meant that David is a strong candidate because he's been around (and around FAC) for a long time, so those of us who have also been around a long time have had more opportunity to get to know his editing. It certainly wasn't meant to downgrade the concerns of anyone who has been here a shorter time, or to imply any kind of seniority effect. I'm happy to apologize for any aspersion you saw in my comments -- I hope you can believe it was careless phrasing on my part rather than bad intent.
Re transparency -- I think there are pros and cons and would probably not oppose if there was a consensus in that direction -- but I think your comment on that was more general, and not really directed at me? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: NO—apologies are due from me; I misunderstood, and that's what we call ABF I think. I understand that's what you meant; re-reading it's also how it reads at first glance... second time around! I'm afraid I'm seeing spooks where there aren't any these days. I'll strike that portion of my comment at WT:FAC. Re. transparency, as you say, that's also a broader discussion for another day, and I'm certainly not holding you responsible for either its presence or absence. In fact, I'll remove those edits to save distraction from business. Thanks for bringing it here, and apologies again for misunderstanding you. I think if umbrage cost twice the price today, I'd still take it! Cheers, Serial 16:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Phew. Thanks for the quick reply! Glad I didn't screw up; I know I'm capable of it .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Adamson Tannehill FAC review
Hello Serial, Thanks very much for taking the time for the review of Adamson Tannehill!! I will take a good look and get back to you when I've addressed all your comments or until I stop because of a question (if okay). I'll say up front that I had a lot of trouble with the military chronology myself. His military service overlaps with most of his civic/political service, so I had to decide whether to go strictly by chronologic order or as I did and mix military with civic a little. I'll try to mix it a little, but it may also sound disjointed. Also, just quickly, the U.S. military style of using rank before a name is to use an abbreviation before his/her full name vs. using a full expansion of the rank spelling before only the surname. For example, Capt. John F. Robinson vs. Captain Robinson. Does this follow the MOS? Again, many thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Image on user page blocking right sidebar on timeless
As much as I like the picture :) [2]
If you can find a way to get that image to not stick until scrolling down on Timeless that would be great. As for your talk page, I could care less about the images blocking the footer, but you might want to figure out a way to get those to not stick as well.
PS I think you would make a great admin. Knowing how to serially (yes that pun was intended) handle problematic and communicate with good faith editors. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Almost there... the user page still has the sidebar buttons blocked...
- Maybe make the side image collapsible so that I can hide the image when I need to access those side buttons. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 12:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Awesomme Assimm, I'm afraid I'm not that great, I don't really see what you mean. What image specifically? Don't you see the same sidebar on this page too? Help! Serial 12:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129 Okay I went ahead and fixed it for you. There might be an annoying button but I can't figure how to make that work a bit better. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Awesomme Assimm, I'm afraid I'm not that great, I don't really see what you mean. What image specifically? Don't you see the same sidebar on this page too? Help! Serial 12:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Henry II
Brilliant. Just brilliant. I just saw the edit you made to Henry II regarding the FA nomination, and I am impressed and astounded beyond words. The writing and academic research present brings my history-nerd eyes to tears. In all seriousness, I have been quite troubled by personal matters (as reflected by my slow activity recently), so I really appreciate the helping hand with this burdensome task. You have outdone yourself yet again. Once again, thank you so much for your assistance. If there is anything I can do for you, just let me know. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Now then, Unlimitedlead, the last time I brought tears to someone's eyes, I was a railway ticket inspector, so I hoped I wouldn't do it again :) but seriously, no—you wrote the article, it's a fine piece of work. An excellent summary of the historiography of the reign. It's a shame that we're (presumably?) running out of medieval English monarchs to work on, otherwise I might've dared suggest a collaboration... and thanks for your offer by the way, much appreciated! SN54129 20:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well now, there's always Henry V, the prize of all prizes. Reach out to me about that sometime if you'd like; I've been eyeing it for a while now.
Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Unlimitedlead: I must apologise to both you and SN54129 for my incessant butting-in here and at your talkpage, but I've been eyeing up the triumvirate of Henry IV, V, and VI for a few weeks now too. Maybe I'm still high off the adrenaline that GA-ing Charles III gave me, but I would like to sink my teeth in to a more substantial project now; I've also taken a glance to see if I can FA Tony Blair or Oliver Cromwell, although both would involve months of work. Henry V and VI's orange-tagged articles are obviously subpar, so if you want to collaborate on one of them, Unlimitedlead? Just ask. I've the Wikipedia Library, Internet Archive, and a bookshelf of G. M. Trevelyan (amongst others) at my disposal to get the article into better shape. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Would Oliver really be that difficult? I mean, yes it's an FAC and yes it's a bio, but most things about him seem pretty nailed down. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think so, yeah. The article, and the references especially, would need a fair bit of reworking to get it anywhere close to FA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn’t even looked at the existing article, I had assumed that I would need rewriting from scratch. If there is usable material already there that should make it even easier. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think so, yeah. The article, and the references especially, would need a fair bit of reworking to get it anywhere close to FA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Would Oliver really be that difficult? I mean, yes it's an FAC and yes it's a bio, but most things about him seem pretty nailed down. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Tim O'Doherty Sounds good. Just wrapped up Edward I and am almost done with Henry II, and I am still deciding who I want to take on next. I likely will not be in a position to work on anything that substantial until November (due to the WikiCup), however, and I am not sure if I want to tackle any of the Henrys just yet. I have a few other candidates up my sleeves ;) Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand. I think I'll start work on Henry VI over the week, as upon closer inspection it is probably the worst article on post-1066 English/British monarchs (unless you count Henry the Young King) on the site. The lead section is badly written, and the article cites YouTube, which, if I'm aspiring to FA, is doubleplusungood. May well be my first FA; if not, second (or third, depending on what happens between now and then) GA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Tim O'Doherty: No apologies, you're always welcome here. Those are some interesting ideas! And, in happy coincidence—almost bizarrely so!—you reminded me of something sitting in my sandbox... for nearly the last five years! Incredible! Although it's looking a bit tatty of course, by today's standards. I'm not sure now why I stopped—except, perhaps if I realised how big the job would be for one editor... SN54129 15:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- (Replying to my 15:30 6/6/23 comment) - How out of date that comment is now, looking back. Very little work on Blair, a bit of work on Henry 6 and a minute amount of work on Crommers. Also, now have 7-ish GAs and an FA under my belt. Unfortunately, cannot see that I will ever "finish" my Henriad project, but never say never, I s'pose. Sorry, SN and Unlimitedlead: looks like I lied to you both. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Tim O'Doherty, no you didn't! If real life—or even wikilife!—circumstances change, that's not your fault, in fact, it's not a fault at all. Everything to its own time! As I said, I've done a fair bit of work on Henry VI already. Splitting the work would make it more manageable for everyone! Keep it in mind. Anyway, thanks for popping back, and apologies for my delay in replying. Hope you're well! ——Serial 11:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Unlimitedlead: I must apologise to both you and SN54129 for my incessant butting-in here and at your talkpage, but I've been eyeing up the triumvirate of Henry IV, V, and VI for a few weeks now too. Maybe I'm still high off the adrenaline that GA-ing Charles III gave me, but I would like to sink my teeth in to a more substantial project now; I've also taken a glance to see if I can FA Tony Blair or Oliver Cromwell, although both would involve months of work. Henry V and VI's orange-tagged articles are obviously subpar, so if you want to collaborate on one of them, Unlimitedlead? Just ask. I've the Wikipedia Library, Internet Archive, and a bookshelf of G. M. Trevelyan (amongst others) at my disposal to get the article into better shape. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well now, there's always Henry V, the prize of all prizes. Reach out to me about that sometime if you'd like; I've been eyeing it for a while now.
- Agreed. SN's played a blinder on Edward III as well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tim (again!) very kind, thanks! It's a job of work, to be sure, but slow and sure wins the race. Luckily I've gotta bit of time right now; it'll probably be like painting the Forth Bridge! SN54129 20:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Precious anniversary
| |
| Six years! |
|---|
Congratulations! - Mozart: I used your wording ("cogent"), for the reasoning of Voceditenore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 | |
| my story today |
Thank you today for John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, introduced: "A joint nomination between myself and Gog on one of the many curious individuals populating late-medieval England. This chap starts off as a bit of an arse, frankly—a plutocrat forced to work with men of greater ability though less lineage, and who clearly can't decide whether he prefers fighting the French or cutting off relatives, as he spends his time doing both in almost equal portions. But—but—whose story ends with, really, some poignancy. This started off with me piling in my editorial size nine boots some years ago, throwing in everything I had on him, following which it was reviewed for GA by Iazyges of this parish (shout out!). More recently Gog has shown me how it's done—as usual—with a fantastic copy edit."! - I'm still curious about the question above. I like to see the ice age of the "infobox wars" melting, and wonder if you see the same. - My stories on the Main page today are about Johanna Geisler and Huub Oosterhuis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I still wonder if you see the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Gumph
thank you today for the article, introduced: "A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship?"! - Sorry, I missed the FAC, meant to go ... -- Happy 2022! (I was on vacation.) The image was taken in memory, and I remember your tribute for SlimVirgin. "the land is bright and wide." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lovely message, thanks Gerda! SN54129 11:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- thank you! - stand and sing Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- Thanks for this Modussiccandi, and also for kickstarting it in the first place. What I noticed was that the original merge (so-called) discussion comprised one editor's proposal—in which the topic's notability was actually admitted!—a "go ahead" from a <300 edit account, and no notifications to any relevant project pages whatsoever. Slam-dunk merge!I don't want to tread on your toes, but there's a bit more I'd like to add (not much—just a few unused sources). I don't know about you, but I reckon there's an FA in there, eventually; thoughts? SN54129 12:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- PS: Congratulations on your upgrade, of course. SN54129 12:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Please feel free to add as much content as you want! And yes, I agree the topic has lots of potential. It might be at GA level already. Is there there such a thing as a joint GA nomination? I know it exists for FAC, but I'm not sure I've seen it for GA. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure...but I know a man who might. RX3, know ye of such a beast? SN54129 13:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Not Ritchie, but yes -- co-noms at GAN level are very common. I don't believe the bot can handle them well, though (the bot in general is rather on its last legs, although someone I've promised to ping every time it comes up until he's finished >:) is working on a replacement), so they tend to be informally done by adding a "[name] is co-nominator" to the |note= section of the GAN template. The unofficial status also means they don't get registered properly on WP:WBGAN, but that can be manually done if it's any sort of concern. Vaticidalprophet 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: thanks for that. Sounds like you need a nightstick in your line of work :) SN54129 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth is your go-to expert editor on mediaeval history. In terms of GA reviews, one person has to start it, and one person has to take responsibility for closing it. Beyond that, in theory, anything goes. For example, Talk:Elham Valley Railway/GA1 was largely undertaken by other people than the reviewer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Ritchie333; obvs, I'll do the Pepsi challenge with anyone on (late) medieval history—although not denying it might be a bit of a stretch call Worms late med—but it sounds like an "anything goes" GAN could be a goer! Cheers mate :) SN54129 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeeees I really really need to get that bot going. As I have said before, the initial 80% of the work is done, it's now the latter 80%.... :) firefly ( t · c ) 14:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Not Ritchie, but yes -- co-noms at GAN level are very common. I don't believe the bot can handle them well, though (the bot in general is rather on its last legs, although someone I've promised to ping every time it comes up until he's finished >:) is working on a replacement), so they tend to be informally done by adding a "[name] is co-nominator" to the |note= section of the GAN template. The unofficial status also means they don't get registered properly on WP:WBGAN, but that can be manually done if it's any sort of concern. Vaticidalprophet 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure...but I know a man who might. RX3, know ye of such a beast? SN54129 13:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Please feel free to add as much content as you want! And yes, I agree the topic has lots of potential. It might be at GA level already. Is there there such a thing as a joint GA nomination? I know it exists for FAC, but I'm not sure I've seen it for GA. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: by the way, check this out. Right up your alley! :D
http://liar.co.uk/SN54129 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned them in a recent DYK, go to Queen's first album, track 5 - or side 2 track 1 if you're old school, about 3:20 in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Modussiccandi: Hi again! Re. the joint GA nom, would you like to look over the article and see if you think its about ready? I wanted to leave it a few weeks back then, so that it becomes fresh again. What do you think? Hope all's well. SN54129 19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me! I have to say that I don't feel a joint GA nomination can be justified at this point: you have contributed much more to this article than I have; all I did really is start it with the most important information. You should do the nomination on your own. Regarding the quality of the article, I think it's in good shape for the GA review: it's comprehensive, well sourced, stable, well illustrated etc. I'm glad you took this article to where it is now. Thanks and best,Modussiccandi (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Nice
- @Celestina007: I'm only grateful for one thing—that whatever happens in the future, I've been lucky enough to have had the chance to watch you grow and develop onto one of our strongest contributors—front and back of house—while not shying away from the sensitive areas needing a nuanced touch. Keep up the (very!) good work! ——Serial 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- You know when your superiors at work make a remarkable comment about you and you literally can not at that moment articulate a proper response that mirrors your inner feelings, that’s me right now. I literally do not have the right words to use to appreciate this statement. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
4
Congrats on your first Four Award! — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Very kind, Bilorv, thanks very much! Now, about the fifteen Triple Crowns I'm about to log... :) SN54129 16:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ha, always happy to check and give out these awards—it pales in comparison to the amount of effort people put into earning them. — Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
L2
- Thaaaanks Gog But can you imagine me ever being anything other than helpful, polite, and respectful at FAC? Yes, I suppose you can... You know where the bodies are buried :) Thanks for the Barnstar, I ain't had it in ages! SN54129 20:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ummm, ahhh ... No, actually I can't. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ummm, ahhh ... No, actually I can't.
- Thaaaanks Gog But can you imagine me ever being anything other than helpful, polite, and respectful at FAC? Yes, I suppose you can... You know where the bodies are buried :) Thanks for the Barnstar, I ain't had it in ages! SN54129 20:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)