User talk:Serial Number 54129: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 14 as User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 13 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

• TBC:John Minsterworth * Nicholas Exton * Battle of Pontvallain * John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke * The 'Wonderful Parliament' (1386) * John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk * John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk * Robert de Umfraville * John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk * John Clifford, 9th Baron Clifford * John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu * Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham * John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont?

The article Robert de Umfraville you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert de Umfraville for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Minsterworth 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel CULS is sufficiently independently notable enough? After about half-an-hour of seeking online sources, I don't think so but you ought to have a better opinion! Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 10:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'd say unquestionably yes; whether or not you can find online sources should have no bearing on the notability of this (or any other) subject. Oxbridge societies aren't the equivalents of student societies elsewhere (except for American equivalents like Skull and Bones or the major fraternities), particularly the big ones like Footlights, the Boat Clubs, the Oxford Union, the Philosophical and Law societies, even the Bullingdon Club. These are the places where the relationships and peer networks that run the English-speaking world are formed—just look at how many entries we have in Category:Clubs and societies of the University of Cambridge and Category:Clubs and societies of the University of Oxford. In the particular case of CULS, you're not only talking about one of the largest student societies in the world, you're talking about the body which organises the Law Ball which is itself a notable event in its own right. ‑ Iridescent 12:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Obviously, notability is independent of online sources, by a mile.And, that's the reason for this post, since I didn't find any worthy reference about the society even at the digital archive of NLI.Though, I will admit that a lot of the pre-70s collections is yet to be digitized:)And, FIM is expected to have better access to sourcing. Anyways, per your extremely helpful comments, I am accepting the draft and it may be beneficial, if you choose to add references, as you see fit.Warm regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 12:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you should rely on the FIM for sourcing, comrade, considering the weather :p >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lord.My memory not failing, I assure you that the gaffe won't be ever repeated again:) Long live Integer! Winged Blades^Godric 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I pay you the compliment of knowing that you're far too intelligent for it to have been accidental :p Fly, my hawkmen! :) Although the size of this conversation is getting mildly ridiculous :D >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

only mildly ridiculous? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad I've been reading this as diffs rather than actual text. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T̵͔̪͔̫̫̙͉̯̲h͏̼̹̠͕͖͍̬̳̕͡i̴̝͕͕̻͇̣̙̟s͕̯̪̲ ̢͕͈̘̝͇s̩̀ͅẖ̢̼̗ơ̖̺̯̲̙ư̠ĺ̨͙̙͈̭d͏҉͚̩ ̴͍̮̲̗̟͝ḇ̼́e̛̪͞ ҉͕̩̤͇h̶̟̺̠̹͍̻͉̙͠a̢̩̩̜̠̹̪̖̞ͅr̡̪̩͢d̢̬̠̲̜̟͖ ͖̭͔̬͔̮̝͘͠t̡͙͚̗͈̮̠̙͟͡o̵̞̼͉̗̠̱̦͘ ̷̴̝͜r͕͈̀͜e̤̯̲̖̼̟̯̯̙a̢̱͔d̳̝͈̫̻͇ͅ ̸͉̖e̛̼̰̕v̻̥̖̫̦̜͎̼̕͟e҉̛̼̤̲̥̗͉̪̞n̢̮̹̤̮̙͟ ̳͔͙̪͡a̬̤͕̯s̷͏̰̗ ̫̟a̰̣̬͉͖͘͘ͅͅ ̗͈̝̦̭͔͉̬͘d̟̟͍̻̺̞͈͔́ͅi̛͓̲f̡̡̜̼̣f̘̺͎͈.̨͙͔͙̜̪ͅ.̧̝̟̣̼̙̪̺ Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a diff it looks like text surrounded by a swarm of bees. Squinting helps. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T̸̵͎̜̪ͦ͌͋ͧͦ̐͐͐̉̿͋̆ͩ̀̚͢ó̸̵̪̥͍͍̝͔̼̯̦̟̘ͫ̏̋ ̸̵̢̮̖̹̤͚̟͇̻͇͇͖̥̼̓ͩ͋ͤͭͬ̎͊͛ͦ̅͝ḭ̧͙͙͈̪̹̗̭̦͇ͮ̈́̂̽̄̈́ͩ͐ͧ̔͌n̆͌ͧͩ̂̀̈́̅ͯ͌͌̈́ͪ̊͑̚̚͏͈͕̼͉̕ͅv̞̩̩̯̦͚̞̟͙̻͔͍̺̘̳̭͇̈́ͦ͑̿̏̑ͬ͂̀̀͘͢͡o̧̦̗̦̜͍̦̟̲̲̍̃̈́ͤ͒̅͐̓̓ͤ̿̌̄͂̍͜͡ͅk̨͖̪̤͕͓̫͙̙̗̇ͯ̄̈́̂̅ͬ̄͂ͦͬ̅̿́͟͞e̛ͯ̎̅̽̔̄ͩ͆̽̚҉̸͖̲̠̮̤̫̗͚͔́ ̨̹̺͉̞̪͓̪̹̻̎̋͋̐̽̉͌̐͟ͅt̨̩̳̤͕͊̉͌̆̅ͧͤ̌͞ͅḧ́ͩ̋̃ͬ͗͂͆̅͂͋͊̍̃ͪ҉҉̬͕͕̗̘ȩ̡̥̦̰̻̃ͧ͊ͥ͑̌͐̂̎ͦͥ̄̋̿̓̚̕ ̴̮̭̺̩̜̼̺̤͉̬͍̮̺͚̗͕̩̗̥ͦ̽͗̍ͪ̒͌̅̏ͩ̂̐̏ͬͯ͘͞ȟ̠̭͇̞̹̯̺̤̲̗̲̑͊̀͌̔͐͊̚̕͞íͨ̔ͯ̽̏ͪͧ͛̋͢͢҉͇̥͕̯̲̘̩̰͔̯̘̱͚͍̫̟̫v̡̨̛̲͖̓͐̆́͢ͅe̾̿ͬͥͨͥ̂́̽̌̄̑ͯͦ͂̊̔͏͕̘̖̮̪̠-̧̍̉̄̆̂̌ͨ̏ͬ͋̇̀̚͝͏̸̯̥̱̥͔̠̬͙m̨̧̰̫̳̞̩̗͇̈́̉̒ͨͬͮͬ̿̂̂̇͐͜i̴̡̮̩͍̹̼̳͍͙͉̘͇͕̯̞͊ͥͮ̓̍̊͗͆͐̎͒̆̽͟͠n̛̘̮̖̻͖͍̺̣̩̩̞̈̏̎̒̇͂̅ͣ̈̽̚͜͠ͅd͙̼̺̠̬͕ͫͧ̄͂ͮ̒͂̓ͭ̀̀ ̢̢̟̗̣̯̳̤͉̌ͪͬͨ͛͊̍ͨͬ͗̈́̂͋̊ͯ̒̕͘͢ͅr̸̢̮̠̞̲͉̗͍̥̯̜̭͈̰̹̯̂̓̋͒̐ͪͨ̆̇͂̓͒̂͐̚͠ȩ̛͎̜̫̦͍̠̭͍͔̠̫͎̗̯͍͓̮͐̽̊ͣ̓̐ͨ͌͊ͪ̂͑ͥͨ̆͆ͣͨ̀̚̕͠p̹̦̺̉ͬͪͪ̔̔̐ͬ͜͡ͅr̸̖̠͇̳͈̜͙͍̠̟̠̩̝̼̮͇̪ͯ̂̅ͥͪ̂ͪ͊ͧͧ͛̿ͦ̂ͯͩ͂̀͡͡ͅe̯̬̦̦̜̜̟͇̙̜̙̹͈̣̖̰͚̍̽ͥ̿͐́ͬ͋̔̾͋ͮ̽̑ͩ̽ͦ̋ͫ͢s̶̓͗ͤͯ͆̉͛͌̅̚̚͏͓͉̦͎̰͈̜̦̙͡eͨͥ̓̾͗͒ͣ̐̓̆ͣ̍ͭ́͟͝͏͍̦̮̻͚̩ň̶̢̬͉̲͓̯͈̪̰͔̙̤̪̇̆ͥ͋͋͂ͩͣ̐͗̏͊̚͢͞͠t̨͕̭̩̤̒͐ͥ̊ͫ̐́i̢͉̙̜̬̳̜̤͚̦̭̞̫͒ͫ̍ͯ͌̔̌̄͋́̇͜͞n̴̡̡͓̳͕̭̘̮̞̦̗ͯ̉͋͒̀̃̎̽͋͆͛͢͡g̷̳͍̣̱͔̥͇̳̫̰͍̘͙͙ͩ͛̑̀̐̑ͤͦͫ̏ͮ͢ͅ ̴̧͍̟̼̬͚̹ͦ̄̏̊͛̍͆ͥ͑͊̎͗͋͒̃̈̏͂̕͢ć̢̳̮̪̮̺̺̣̪̮͕̦͚̺͒̆̔ͫ̀̊͌ͤ̀́̄̌͘̕͢͞ḩ̙̯̩̟̺̮̖͎͖̈̄̓͂ͪ̉̔̓͒ͯ͗̇̇͂͛̀̚͜͝a̸̶̠̱̙͓̙̱̱̟͕̹̣̠̝͇͖̻̣͉ͪ̓̂̈́͌͑͘͟͜ơ̴͎͈̲͉͖̮̘̺͍̼̞͉̫̲̺͉ͪ̇ͥ̓͜ͅş̴̙͇̙̗̩͖̣͎̭͔̘͎̠̪̣̣͕͈̍͊̈́͗͒͌ͧ̑ͫ̾ͤ̃̈́̚.̅̔̈́ͩ̀͐̈́́ͥ̒ͦ̃͊̽̓̈ͤ̎̀̚͘͢͏̹̺̩̤̪̝͍͚̳͈͓̪̥̫̠͞ͅ

̴ͣ̋̓ͤ͗̐͆͂ͫ̔ͨ̔̈ͦͪ̓ͭ̀̀̚͏̝̥̲̤̤͕͚͓̪̝̣̭̲̖͉ͅͅĨ̛͍̗̦̼͚̪̟̬̗̻͖̤̠̻͒͒̈͢͠n̸̷͂ͪ̇̽̔̀̔́͏̻̲̯̥ͅv̸ͩͪͧͭͬͣ̍҉̹̼̭̖̼̺͉̭͉͔̰o̬̺̘̪̲͇̯̲̹̟̪ͯ̾ͩ̃ͧ̅͐̅͐ͤ͌̑͗ͧ̽̀͡k̵̹̖̜̬̳̬̳͖̱̼͍͍̙̦̞̥̈ͧ͂͋̒̽̅͋ͪͭͣ́ͤ́̃̐̊͐͘͜͜įͣ́ͫ͗̓͆ͦ̉͗͋ͫ͋̚͡͠͏̬͕̮͚͔̝̪̗̻̞͓n̷̋̌ͣ͋̾̊͗͏͢͏͙̻͚̩͉̫͘g͚̤͇̹̥̭̦̪͈̦̼̜̦̫ͭ̔̈́̊ͨ̄̕͝͝ ̸̴̲̫̱͓̟̜͇̙̩̼̝͇̲̬̻̗͎̯͙̏́ͦͣ̂͆ͨ͂ͯͧ͟͝͠t̵̵͉̞̗ͮ̾͛̀͛ͧ̾̂͂ͪ̂̈̑͂ͬ̎͛́͜͡ͅh̷͚̥̠̼̝ͮ̐͒͌ͧͯͫ̾͊̆̊ͦ̿̔͘͟͜͠e͓̭̞̼̞̙̺͖̘͗͋̂ͩ͊ͪ̌͑̐͊̀̄ͭ̈̊͐ͧ́̚̕͟͜ ̐ͫ̄͛̽͊ͬ̀ͥ̋ͫ̏ͪ͏̷͟͏̙͚̭̝̟̘̝̯͚̣͍̦f̽͋͌̆̋̊̀͢͏̵̛̗̮͎̰͇͖̻͕̠̥͎e̻̻̠̤̱͇̞͕͔̥͎̹̲͕̦̭̜̅̾͛ͬ̿͘͠͞ẻ̶̷̘̩̻̪̣̬̥̥̠̖̝̯̖͍̠̗̟̾̇ͫͫ̋̾̅̓͡ͅl̸̷̵̢͉̱̫̥͍̔ͧ̄ͦ̆̃͒ͨ̆͝i̶͒͂̏̉̿ͯ҉͏͏͉̳͔̠̭͓̩̜̼̯̗͇̖̮̪ǹ̸̥͍͙͖͚̣͉̘̻͉͎̯̩̦͍̖̫̙̊̈͊̈́ͧ̑̔̒̍̒ͣͮͭ͌͊́̚͟͢͞ġ̡̹̩̱͎̭̭͒͂ͪ̓ͥͩ͡ ̷̝̱̝̟͍͎̯̫͚͇̱̣̗͙ͧ̐̌̇͗ͧ̿̒́̌̍̚͞͝ͅo̧̢̡͕͎͓̥̩͉ͮͫ͐͋̒̓͂ͬͪ͊ͣ̈͂ͫ͗̀̚͝ͅf̥̙͉̥̣͇͍̯͈̂ͤ̈́̂̑ͯ̏ͣͥ͐͘͟ ͪ͛̒ͭ̓͐̍͘͏̱̞͕̹͓̩͕͓̭͕̺͈͢͝cͨ͋ͫͮͦ͊̈̚͏̨̥͕̮̲̝͉̗͔͈̹̣̦͔̹h̡ͫ̋͐̈ͨ͂ͮ̔ͫ͌̿̈͆̈́̋ͦ͠҉̵̸̳͙̲̘͔̫a̛̹̘̰̞̘̱̰̪̬͈̱̗͒ͩ̀̐ͧ͛̑ͤ̐̋̃ͬ̍̂̊̇ͫ́̚͘oͬ̐̃̿̌̐́̌̽͒̅̕͝҉̷̲̜̺̥ș̷̛̤̙̦͎͔͈̝ͯ̓ͯ̐͒̃ͭ̂͛̋ͭ̔̌̈.̢̳̟̼̫̖̦͎͖̜̙̰̖͆̽ͧͣ̋́͘ͅ ̐̿ͫ̓̓ͧ̈́̐̔͘͜҉̗̠͎̞̰̙̬̹̼̫W̴̨̛̏ͦͩ̋̅̏̎̽ͯ̍́́͢҉͈̮̯̖̖̩į̸̨͕̗̖̭͎͖ͦ́ͮ̄ͯ͛̒̈͑̃̒̉̃͂t̓ͣͤ̆͊̋̊̊͌ͬ̏̌ͭͫͥͫ͏̛͎̺̠̜̫̼͟͠h̐̂ͪ̀͐̐̒̉̋ͨ̔͏̵͇͖̮̫̜͙̲̼̖͎̩̩̖̟̬̖̕͞ ̵̨̮̪̳͍̗̄͐ͭ̍̊͆́͢͝o̻̠̣͈̯̺͈̞̽͂͂̉̈́̃̒̃̋̂ͤͧͯ͒ͯ̾̽̔ͥ̕u͈̭̼̰̝̜͉̖̘̲̟̼͇͕͙͈̘̯̟̎ͯ̑ͦ̃ͯ̎̃̅̽̒ͭ̈ͥ̇̀̄̾̍̀͡͝t̸̡̫̮͕͇͍̠̮̗̫̝͉̓̈́ͧ̔ͦ̈́ ̞̤͙͎̮̙̰̗͔̹͔̪̠̀̓̿̂̈ͯ́ͦ̽͟͜ó͕͉̼͇ͮ̂ͫͤ̔ͬͣ͘͜͠ȓ̡̩͖̱̭͓̺̿̃͋̎ͅd̵̠̩͚̯̜̜̰̰͙̮͓̮͔̖͎̳͕̤̻̏̀̐ͮ̎ͤͪ͒ͦͫ͋ͤ̇ͯ́e̸̷̛̬͚̗̣̹̥͈̰̙̫̠̤̣̥̭̝͉̬̿̈̇͋͆̇̿̊͐̐ͫͩͩͣ͟ȑ̡̹̗͉̻̤̦͚͓̭͉̮̣͔͎ͮ̾̊͘̕ͅ.͛̅̍ͮ͂ͭ̿͏͝͏̣̲͇͉̦͉̻̗̺̰̯̦͔̫̼̱̭̪ ̧͎͇̩̰̹̟̟̗͉̜̫͇̮̼̹̿͊̊͆̄̀̃̃ͧͧ͛ͮ̚͝͞͞ͅṰ̫̼̝̳̜̹̟̩̞͇̯̘͐̈́̔̃̅ͫ̈́ͩ̀̐̔͆̆̒͒͌͘ͅh̴͇͖̣̳̙̘̝͍̗ͭͥ̓͘ḝ̻͙͚̘̳̖͙̺̜͙̰͚̮͓ͦ̋̅̉ͯ͒̾̋́̚͟ͅͅ ̶̢͕̼͇̩͖̤ͬͤ̃ͯͮ̃͛͠͝N̘͍͕͙̫̦̺̠͚̩̞̪̱͊͌ͮ̒ͬ̔̄͋́̑̓̉̽͌ͯ̽͢͞ͅe̵̷̘̜̬̦̞̘͖ͫ̿̇ͬͅz̸̸̷̳̯̝̦̹̳̭̘̹̿̔̋̉ͯ̈̐̾̔͂͊̈́͋ͬ̒̐ͧ̉̚͞p̴̐ͩ̂́̊̆̐̊͑̀͘͠͏̨̩̰͖̪̹͙̙͕̰̹̦ȩ̴̹̬̳̳͖̥͔̖̘̙̩̜̳͚͉̩̥͌̊ͭ̌ͦ͢ŗ̸̨̘̩͕͙͙̬ͤͧ͗ͩ̃́ͨ̿̑̍͊ͥ̿d̷̙̙̼͍̮́̓ͩ̈́̏̽̉ͯ̐̓ͦ̃͂̚̕̕i̶̧̯̯̟̬̳̤̜̝͚̣͓̪̺̞̹̅͂ͪ͌ͤ̌ͩ͘͘͞a̛͕̳͎̳͐̒ͣ̅ͫ̾̇̍ͩ̆̓ͪ̑ͧ͝͞nͯͨ̈́ͫ̾̓ͪ͂͊̇ͬ͐̎̈̍̍͊͢҉̺͙̹ ̠̝̟͎̙͓͇̳̹̗̞̗ͧ̇ͦ̿̈͗̏̽̇͛ͫͨ́̍͌͗̿ͤ̚͠͠͝ͅh̶̢̗̣̙̦̲̻̲͍̼͚̫̱̙̭̬̗͚̦̎̑̃̓̂͆͋̐ͤ̍ͦ̑͝i̸̶̵̊̄̐̓̿̓̀̌̓͌ͫ͊̇̀҉̝̻͙͍̱̜͚͚̠̼ͅv̸̢͕̫̜̬̻̥̼̝̦͚̦͉͕̩̮̔̌ͯ̀͆̇ͧ̊ͬ͢͢͝e̔̔̂ͭͯ̏ͯͣͩ̋̓̓͋̇ͭ̂̏̀̚͏̕͟҉̸̖̺͎͈̟̪͈̝̹̘̰̦̦-̸̡̟̟̤̲͎͍͓͖̞̫̰̱̹͉̅̽̎̓ͫ́ͅṃ̷͉̼͖̦̝͊̌ͯ̄ͯͭͫ̄͗͗̿̉̒͋̇̊ͬ̀̚ī̒ͭͪ͑͊͊͛̿̾̂̽͡҉̹̯͎̤͕͉̟̜̪̫͘͢͡n̮͕̠̪̠̮̲͕̋̄̿ͯͦ͂̈ͨͩ̌ͤ͛ͯ̋͑̒̈́́́͘͢͡d̵̬̗̰̗͓̗̹̗̜̯̪̜̗͔̲̱͉̘̊͋̒͐̃ͨ͌̆ͯ͗͟͠ ͪ̓̓͒̊̑̐ͬ́͏̪̼͇̦̳̬͉̰́ō̡̱͇̺̗̟̩̱̣̲̤̞̱̒̊ͯ̉̂ͦͤͬ̂͆̓͊ͩ͜͜͠ͅf̶̵̧̤͕̩͕̗̮̱̻̯͇̻̤̬̱̾ͭ͆́͐̊ͭ̾ͥ͑̌͗ͭ̌̇̔͗ ́̂̅̀͒̎̌͡҉̷̷҉̤̭̺̝̱̤̗̙̩̼̳̻̯̭̞͇ͅc̤͈̞̣̹͍͓̦̺͙̳̿́ͭ͊̏ͩ̅̽̑̆͋̂ͯ̏͢h̶̡̹̩̪̜̥͕̼̥ͧ̎ͣ͐̓ͨ͒̂̀ą̴̛̺̲̘̻̦̪͙͍͕̙̫̗̝̠̆͑ͨͧ̓͑̏̔̌̇ͧ̈͛͌̽ͩ͌͡ͅo̶̴̡͎͖͕̜̯̖̥̩̭ͣͧͥ͐ͫ͂̑ͥ̄̚͢͡ͅṣ̗̹͍͎̲̰͇͚ͤ͋̎͂ͤ̈́ͣ̿ͪͭ̏̈͆͘͡.̖͓̻̰̻͕̗̹̬̰͚̗͚͎̩͉̤̮̃ͯ͂ͮͯ̊͑̌͂̽ͦ̾̀̋͌̔͢͢ͅ ̰̘̼͉̥͍̼̙͊̈̔̅͑̓ͩ̉̾ͨ͢͜Ž̴̯̫̯̫̪̠̼͚͈̫͉͍ͮ̎͂̌̽͟ͅā̧̢̙̗̭̰͎̰ͫͦ̂̐͢͡͡l̸̵̢̲͈͖̬͇̫̻ͥͤ̄̀͐́g̸̢̨̠͇̙̘̠̼̟͕̱̃̆̀͊̾͂ͭ͆̽̀͞ö́ͮ̃ͥͣ̋͂ͣ̌̊̎̓͛̓ͮ͘͜͜͏̘̞̞̺͓̗̜̪͈̱̦̗̹̝ͅͅͅ.̸̛̹̯͖̲̩̻̤̣̖ͧ̐͋͗̇̚ͅ ̸̵̡̯̤̰͓͈͎̮̪͕̼̟̯̄̾ͥ͐̿̓̀̚͞ͅH̶̢̼̰̖̜̘͉͔̜̠̘͕̹̜̦̟̥͚̭̆ͭ̈́ͮͧ͌̍ͦ̒ͦͬ̔̅ͨͤ̓̚ͅȇ̵̴͉̗̰̫̣̫̲̺̮̓̎ͤ̂̐ͦͬ́ͮͧͩ̌̏̊͐ͤ͛́͠ͅͅ ̌ͥ̇̄ͦ̾ͯ́͏̠̼̥͓͚̤͈̘̰̣͢͡w̸͚̤͉̼͇̬̜̻̫͉͔̪͚̯͓̮͖̾̂̽̏̈́̀͑ͦͪ͌̎̀́̚͢͠ḣ̟̭̫̝ͥ̊͌̈́̄͂̈͗̓̌͋̚̚͘͡o̸̴̝͕̥͔͕̞ͯ̇̀̑ͧ̾͂̾ͧ̿̌ͩ̇ͯ̆ͭ̾̊̕͟͢ ̷̴̴̨͈̥̣͔͇̉̈́͒͑͋̍̈̿W̷̡ͥ͋̌͂͂͡͏̙͕̥͚̗̖̗͇̭͉̹̯͓̠̻̥͕a̴̺̭͙̜͉͈̘͕̙̬͎̥̤̺̮͓̱͂̅̿̾̅ͮͩͤͬ̆͛͟ͅi̐ͩ́͗̇̈́͒̿͊ͯ͒̏̐ͦͮ̒҉͏̦̩̼̺̕t̴̔ͥ͊ͮ̉̐̽ͥ͞͏̀͏͓̯̻̦͍͎͙͓ś̱̦̻͉̰̺̦̄ͪ͆̇̓͆͊̾̂̍̈́̊́͜ ̸͎͚̖͚̭͕̯̞͇͉ͦ̔̋̍͑̂͋ͭͣ̉̓͐ͤ́̚ͅB̡̲̪̰͔̤̲̰̹͉̖̠͈͖̦̻͉͕̬͛̈́̆͛̇̌ͯ̐̐eͪ̽̏ͮ̒ͬͣ͑̆̾҉̷̴̢̮̣̯̼͢ĥ̸̷̨̦̠̲̝̦̻̗̟̱͎͈̀̌͆͒̈̃ͮ͒ͫ̎̄͊̎̈́͠ĭ̧̱̱̝͓̪̳̭͇̥̖͉͛̈ͣ̕ņ̸̪͇̗̬̭̲̦̝̝̼̲̺̾ͯ̌̊ͧ͛́͟͝dͯ̿̉̀̈̇͘͏̧͍̯̙̞̪̟͓͙͔̟̰͍͙͎͎͚̞͈̜ ̲͍͉̫̜̪̜͉͍̲̘̠̝̤̳̙̮͔͕ͦ͋ͮ̉̅ͥ̌ͫ̉̆̒̈̇ͫ̓͂̔́͜͜͡T̢͛͛͆ͪ̈́͗̄ͮͫ̽͂ͪ̏̿̚҉͏̡̮̩̲̙̰̦͉̜̞̻̼̩̩̗̪͞h̵̡̧͂ͧ̀͑̀̿̀ͥͣ̋ͦ̇́̈҉͚͕̞͕̯͙̯ĕ̫͉͕͈͔͔̘͈̰͍̘̹̬̭͙͓ͭ̃ͮ̃ͩ͐ͮ͊̎̊̀ͯ͊ͯ͜͢͠ͅ ̷̗͉̹͕̰̬̞͇̘̰̻̩̱̘̥͖̺̳̖ͫ̐́̌̈͛́́͟W̵̧͖̠̤̟̥̥̭̰̟͉̠͚̱̯̩̼̙̳͆͋̂ͨ͂̅̿̂̀ą̵̵͍̟̦̣̟̺̱͐̎ͩ̋̚͟͞ͅl̨̳̰̞̼̺̥͔̹̘͇̩̼̭̣̮̆̋̍̄ͨͬ̊̈͟l̴̲̯̼̹͓̪͕̲̹̠͚ͮ̃͒ͫ͠͡ͅ.̴̢͙̤̝̠ͮ͂̐̊̊ͣ͊̾͑̌ͧ̔ͣͤ ̨̢̱͇̰̜͓͓̪̍̊̾̕ͅZ̢̳̻̬̣̞͉̺̜͚͓̒͌͆̿́͗͟͢Ä̴̲͔͚̫͚͉͒ͫ̂ͦͨ̆́̀͢L̷͎͚̝̪͋̈̅͐̾̇̎͛̈ͬ̇̌͌ͩ̋̔̉͠Ģ̴̶̘͚̲͇̣̱̗͕̤̑͌͛̂̈̄͑ͩ̓ͤ͒ͤ͞ͅͅÖ̸̡̩̝̬̟̺̣̯̦̬̩́͑ͧͦ̂͒͂͐ͧͧͤͬ̃̔͋̅͊́͟!̭̫̱̘͕ͭͨ̈́͗ͯ̏ͮͦͣ̃ͩ̂͘ Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, that text is actually larger than the text before/after it. And Zalgo has nothing on Zuul. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to be getting more and more meaningful, every moment:)Winged Blades^Godric 17:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, For "meaningful", I read err "tiny"...? ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, "bizarre"  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very meaningful and productive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thank goodness for Drmies typo-fighting :) otherwise where would we be, in amongst the tinyness! HE WAS amongst the tinyness... :p >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I almost knocked a few things over with my Very Big Button. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a bigger button - a very very big button. presidential too Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a pain to source as most of the publications won't be online, (and the existence of the Law Society will mean any online searching has a zillion false positives), and to do it justice would probably mean wading through the "my undergraduate days" sections of stacks of memoirs. Except for the self-promoters at the Oxford Union and Footlights most student societies are fairly coy when it comes to public discussion of what they actually do. (From my admittedly anecdotal experience of living and working in central Cambridge, the main social activities of most of these groups are "getting so drunk they puke on their own shoes", "trying to fight locals and losing", "assuming any passing woman is a prostitute and propositioning her" and "falling in the road or occasionally the river".) The Rambling Man might know where to find sources on the Oxbridge societies from his work on the Boat Races. ‑ Iridescent 13:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:--As I delved more into the procedural aspects, I'm afraid that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge University Law Society (2nd nomination) will make it difficult for a stand-alone article to be established sans good references.What's your thoughts?And, your wordsmithery couldn't be praised enough:)Winged Blades^Godric 14:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Winged Blades of Godric: Apologies for the belated reply, had an early start and ended up in a bit of a tear up at the railway, it was classic. But, yes, I'm with Iridescent (not literally, that would be hideous :p ), it's almost impossible that something so closely connected with one of the oldest universities of the western world and of such pedigree (etc) couldn't be notable. But as said, something that old is likely to be covered heavily offline. I think a search of (*nodding to the previous reference*) the Law soc's own library would be a fruitful endeavour. As it satnds, I admit the article as it stands is heavily and indeed over-reliant on primary sourcing, but no way is this a lost cause. How are we anyway? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i guess you are technically a talk page watcher of your own page Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...I like to remind myself sometimes!  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades^Godric

My point is that I can main-space the draft, over-writing the redirect but once it's in the NPP feed, if it meets the eye of any experienced NPP-er, (given the near-zero-web-presence and the outcome of the prev. AFD), there's a very good chance that the article will be immediately despatched to another AfD and once there, we will be in need of sources.So, either we wait for the time-being (until you and/or Iridescent can provide some reliable secondary source(s)) or choose to defend it at AFD.Which one do you prefer?Winged Blades^Godric 15:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​An old AfD as ridiculous and non-policy-based as that one was wouldn't have influence on any subsequent debate, and certainly wouldn't be enough to bring WP:G4 into play. There's a long-standing myth (perpetuated, it has to be said, by some of the more obsessively deletionist admins) that if something's kept at AfD it can keep being nominated until consensus changes in favour of deletion, but that once something's deleted by any means the earth is salted and it can never be re-created. This is complete pish; "consensus can change" works both ways, especially in an environment as prone to distortion as deletion, where the canvassing of half-a-dozen people with a grudge can create the appearance of consensus. If you're planning to work on any topic and you're confident that you can demonstrate notability, don't let the deletion of a former version put you off (this is a fairly notorious example; even Ed Sheeran has had the indignity of being speedy-deleted in the past). Ritchie333 and Andrew Davidson will know where to find the assorted policies, guidelines and precedents if you want to go down this particular rabbit hole. ‑ Iridescent 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been made aware of this discussion. I agree both that it is almost certainly notable and that the 2014 AFD will make it tricky to avoid it being deleted again. It seems like it does want someone with access to offline sources; by a happy coincidence I have easy access to the University Library and the Squire Law Library, and have sufficient spare time to devote some of it to trawling through archives. What I'm _not_ is any kind of lawyer; I'm not sure I would know where to look.

I will gladly act on suggestions as to where to look, or failing that go on a fishing expedition to see what I can turn up. However, I imagine the Draft's creator also has easy access to those libraries and is also a law student, so it might be better to ask them. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hii, sorry to just insert myself into the discussion - I received the link from Winged Blades^Godric. I am the Cambridge University Law Society page's Draft creator. Thank you all for your thoughts; I was hoping for your opinion on whether these sources would suffice:

1. Academic coverage of CULS addresses by prominent individuals in the Cambridge Law Journal (copies of speeches republished as academic articles)
2. Recordings of addresses by very prominent individuals on iTunes (Andrew Murray, John Laws (judge), Conor Gearty, Lord Clarke and more)
3. Coverage of the CULS by The Tab and Varsity newspaper (these specifically refer to the Law Ball's notability)
4. Use of Cambridge Law Journal only to establish presence of distinguished visitors and the early history of the Society
5. Link to the Cambridge University Students Union (which CULS currently redirects to), which refers to CULS events as "prolific" and "renowned university-wide".

Following your advice, I have also approached the Cambridge University archivists. They indicate that coverage of CULS events was historically done primarily through the Cambridge Law Journal, but that they may have copies of other ephemera such as flyers, event programmes or termcards.

Does this sound reasonable? I compared it with the references on the Cambridge University Students' Union page (which CULS currently redirects to) and the Cambridge Union page, and they appear to be comparable. I note that until a book on the Cambridge Union's history was produced in 2009 (by a former President of the Union), there was similarly scant secondary coverage.

Many thanks! Arjundhar (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that much of this is not very good. Recordings of addresses - sure, they happened, but did independent sources care? The Tab and Varsity are perhaps not the very epitome of reliability when it comes to newspapers. The Cambridge Law Journal has been discussed on your own talk page. CUSU is hardly going to talk down a major University society. I fear this would simply see a third deletion nomination appear and result in redeletion.

If other law journals have found the activities of the society noteworthy that would be very useful. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts! Let me look a little further or explore ways to get some external coverage. Arjun Dhar (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't mean this by "get some", but you cannot go and generate any. By definition, if you generated it, it is not independent. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I meant that I would explore inviting media platforms to cover some of CULS events. CULS has many noteworthy activities, but we do not actively solicit media coverage of them. As most of these events are either limited to members or ticketed, media platforms do not receive access to them. Perhaps it would help if we gave them access?Arjun Dhar (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Minsterworth 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:John Minsterworth for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers. In your own time, of course. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you removed massive amounts of content from the article to revert to last stable version when there was no activity on the article, I assume it was a good faith error but please be more careful using Twinkle. (Unfortunately I reverted while logged into my alt account on mobile phone so I am leaving you a note about it) SeraphWiki (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on both talk pages, but didn't call them or this, "shitty messages", as well as delighting in the fact that, whilst we probably all wish talk pages could be drama free, the one certain way of reducking drama... is not to cause it. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I was looking over the most recent RfA and noticed with your !vote you were saying XTools reported you as the ninth top editor to WP:ANI. What's actually happening is XTools is only parsing the most recent 50,000 edits. There is a red banner at the top that explains this, which I'm assuming you missed. I have made this banner bigger and bolder, so hopefully it will be more obvious now. Should you have any other ideas on how to make it more clear that the data is limited, let me know :) Pinging Iridescent in case they have any input.

I wanted to also point out that in the "Top editors" table, there is a link to the Top Edits tool, which shows you all the edits that user made to that page. E.g. see [1] for your edits to ANI. This will give you an exact count. I see that Iridescent was using Sigma's usersearch to get this information, which is totally fine (I don't mean to discourage use of other tools), I just wanted to make you both aware of Top Edits since the link to it is right there in the Page History interface. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MusikAnimal, only 4% edits there after all. Sorry, I must have missed that box but I do see what you mean. I hope you didn't take it personally- I wasn't really criticising the tool, more my (apparent!) over-indulgence at the dramaboard  :) Thanks very much for going to the trouble of filling in me in with the details, extra information is always nice, leads to a more well-rounded perspective you know. Take care of youself! Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Already on the list. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely basking in greatness :) "imitation, the sincerest form of flattery," etc., although whether Wilde or Colton said it first I don't know... thanks for that page though. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The article John Minsterworth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Minsterworth for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to put you out old chap  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SN. I agree with your statement on Oshwah's talk page. Oshwah is so conscientious about replies to posts there so I was trying to save him some hunting time. I almost mentioned forum shopping but thought there were enough flames in the situation already. I hope didn't make things worse but apologize if I did. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way, MarnetteD, you were actually being rather subtle, and I turned up in a pair of size thirteens  :) which I realsie now but didn't at the time, sorry about that. In any case, your view certainly seems to be the accepted one, rightly so. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Serial Number 54129. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My response (look at the time stamp) came before your own. Is there something I'm missing as to why your comment should supercede my own in response to Golden Ring? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this, Winkelvi?! -poking, or what :D Tbh, your response @AN/I could have drifted slightly closer to the Bay of Good Faith: I read GR's question—whilst slightly misguided to those that have seen the .gif all over the place, perhaps—as a legitimate one, in the circs. I'm not sure that you really needed to immediately accuse him of stirring the shitpot  :) What's he done to you? ^{Serious question—I assume there must be something, you don't normally fly off the handle.} >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear, I never said shitpot, that was your addition. Something else we need to be clear on is that I have no ulterior motive here. As far as I know, Golden Ring and I have never interacted previously. At least not in my memory. Something else you should consider is that if so many people already have the American flag gif on their own user space, why would one more person putting it on theirs be poking the bear in any way? They likely aren't, and neither am I. Not that I need to explain why I put it there, but I do feel as if you're trying to build a case against me here, and I just wanted to clear that up as well. My comments to Golden Ring were merely to point out that because the discussion he seems to be trying to reopen was so contentious, and needed to be closed fairly rapidly, and it was... that I didn't see any good purpose in addressing anything more at the discussion. What he asked about could have been done plenty of other places in Wikipedia, it could have even been done on Sir Joseph's talk page, but it wasn't. Yes, I probably did lack some good faith in my question to Golden Ring, and for that I'll take the blame. But everything else that you have insinuated here is not very good faith-ish, either. Now back to the question of why you think your comment supersedes mine even though the timestamp states differently as does the guideline on talk pages and the manual of style. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a) Well, etymologically-speaking, stirring is stirring, whatever the contents of one's pot. b) I agree that GR's comment was overall unnecessary. c) I neither desire nor need to build a case against you. d) I'm also aware of how many editors use the flag gif, since I already pointed it out. e) The discussion is, as you wished, closed, which I too am grateful for. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously underestimated how much drama could come of an honest question about gifs interacting with the skin. It's really not that big a deal and wasn't ever meant to be. Sorry I ever mentioned it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm surprise that you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evergreen_Public_School per NAC because the moment a discussion gets valid !votes for and against it is essentially "controversial". While I would probably have come to the same conclusion had I NAC'd it, I'm also surprised with your comment about no-one invoking WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, bearing in mind that this !vote was citing it in all but name, as that person regrettably continues to do on a fairly regular basis despite participating in and knowing the result of the RfC which deprecated it. That !vote is also essentially contrary to WP:OSE.

It's up to you but it might be worth bearing this in mind if you close any similar discussions in the future. That !vote should have been discounted, imo. Perhaps also some of the others. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Barring our serial-supporter at school-AFDs who can transform any quasi/non-existent school into an encyclopedic one, there are some highly-vocal editors who think that all secondary schools are by-default notable, just if they could be proved to exist. And, when one gets a school-AFD where the subject has quite a few GHits (their triviality/ covg. levels be damned), that's never a case of delete, as here.Unless more and more editors choose to actively participate in these AFDs and uphold the usual rules of notability, the RFC will continue to be twisted by certain discussants and consensus will reinforce consensus.Winged Blades^Godric 17:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The highly-vocal editors who think that all secondary schools are by-default notable, just if they could be proved to exist have a perfectly valid point of view, and you'd do well not to sneer at them; while there's a legitimate and ongoing debate about whether it should apply to schools, it's the argument that's the basis of every subject-specific notability guideline, and rejecting it would be a fundamental change to the nature of Wikipedia. As with every other SNG, the argument here is that since a secondary school is by definition one of the most important institutions in its community, it can always be reasonably presumed that there will always be at least one piece of significant, non-trivial, independent coverage in a reliable source (i.e., the "New School Opens" feature on the front page of the local paper on the relevant day), and consequently provided that it demonstrates that the school has at some point existed, any mention in a reliable source no matter how trivial is sufficient to demonstrate notability. By all means debate whether this principle should apply to schools, but be aware that abolishing "sources can reasonably be presumed to exist" as a concept would totally change the nature of Wikipedia (it would wipe out about 90% of our sports biographies and 75% of railway station articles, for a start), and also be aware that if you disagree with the principle then you, not the people with whom you're arguing, are the one who's currently out of step with existing consensus. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:Nah..Sources are presumed to exist is a quite good reason (systemic bias et al) and I've myself used it.Additionally, my point is solely about Schools-AFDs. Anyways, irrespective of the particular venue, certain use of discretion and common-sense is necessary.Clinging to every school AFD to !vote on the same grounds without any slightest bother to the details does not strike to me as satisfying either.Winged Blades^Godric 19:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely go to a closer's talk page after an AfD close, but this one seemed so odd that I wanted to try to understand why an easy delete was closed as NC. I wasn't surprised to see this discussion starting here. If you look at all the sources, you see that not one is more than a passing mention about the school - and they are just trivial mentions. Sitush has been doing a good job culling the flotsam, but the other remaining sources are really poor also. WP:GNG clearly states there must be more coverage to pass. I don't have any skin in the game besides a bias towards consistency, and so am not going to challenge this with a formal AfD review request, but if you actually read each source you may reassess your decision. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but reading the sources is not the role of the closer, who should be uninvolved. A part of the problem is that those who commented either don't understand GNG or were wilfully ignoring it while registering their support for the thing. The closer would not realise this unless people pointed it out in the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did, which is why the NC close surprised me. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean you. I was referring to those who favoured keeping the thing. Either way, that aspect of the close is not Serial Number 54129's problem for the reason I gave. If closers started running a fine-tooth comb through the article sources then they could potentially be applying a supervote. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see evergreen it reminds me of Evergreen (The Twilight Zone)^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 11:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I understand. Do you think the best way for the process to work is if the contested AfD closes are formally challenged, rather than bringing them to the closer's attention on their talk page? I've never closed an AfD myself, but I know that it's not simply a vote count, because otherwise it could be automated. I'm just trying to understand how much of correct policy has to be taken into account by a closer, and what the best recourse is when its not, without pissing off anyone that I don't know for an article I really don't have must stake in. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll have to check out the new(er) Twilight Zone series PaleoNeonate. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a noticeboard for review of contested deletions but I don't think there is a parallel board for contested keeps (which is the effective outcome of "no consensus" also, bizarrely given the underlying thesis of WP:BURDEN). In my experience, people who close at AfD and then are challenged on reasonable grounds (especially if the close was a NAC) tend to revert their closure and leave it for review. It would appear that the closer on this occasion has no intention of doing that, given their lack of response to this thread but continued activity elsewhere. I guess the only option for someone sufficiently concerned would be to re-nominate the article for a second AfD. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush and Timtempleton: Not at all, I have been following the discussion closely and with great interest, and I'm honoured that you chose to hold it here. Normally, per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd've given my reasons—and probably done nothing else, since I never close a discussion unless I'm absolutely sure of myself (by which internal logic, of course, nothing woud need to be done). However, although I haven't contributed to these discussions, that was a deliberate decision so as in order to not invoke AA too soon. At this stage, I am mindful of your arguments—nuanced as they are towards, for example, the lack of a DRV for disputed keeps—and am comfortable in overturning my close. I don't, I admit, hold out much hope that further discussion will land firmy enough in the delete corner to create a paradigmatic shift; but it's certainly worth exploring.

Thanks again for being here: apologies if I should have squeaked sooner, but I wanted your examination to play out without my—obviously somewhat partisan!—opinion. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think it was necessary to wheel war over AN/I discussion closure; for this case, it was fine; but when are you going to run for RfA? Hundreds of us have been asking you and perhaps, GreenMeansGo. Alex Shih (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Look: I really must apologise about the ANI close. I assure you—no excuse that it is—that I didn't realise that You had already closed it, that SoV had re-opened it, and then I turned up in size thirteens  :) I saw the thread, went to the RfC, saw you'd closed that, and went back to the ANI thread... and closed it :o I'm afraid you and "hundreds" of others are now in the company of someone who didn't check the page history. A page one error! -and one which I will be rightfully condemned for. Sorry about that. Hope SarekoV didn't think I was stepping on their toes too. wel, clearly i did; but not deliberately. Nice message though: thanks! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're doing... a joint RfA so we can fail together an console one another. GMG^talk 21:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you are all bound and determined to fall on your sword like that, this'll cut the sword budget considerably.... Anmccaff (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then they're stuck together and would have to abide by the two-man rule for any administrative actions. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True dat  :) They're critical, I just bring the mass  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(talk page watcher) I would have rated this comment of your's as an example of trolling of the lowest class, if not your pathetic attempt at the same shit-stirring, hours after a RFC on the issue has been closed was a serious competitor.Winged Blades^Godric 14:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Please don't. This is an active discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explained here; thank you for making a more reasonable point than that in the section above, which does not, of course, endear itself to receiving anything approaching a civil reply. Or even a reply at all. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although validation is not a requirement, neither is it unwelcome. Thanks, all. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not validation. The subject of this note was your archiving, not the merits of your position. Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so; it was estblished that it was not in fact an active discussion. That suffices, and I thank you for your note. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serial Number 54129, in User_talk:Nagualdesign#Synopsis, you write "[...] any admiistrative action should have taken place". As I stated in my block message, I wasn't happy about it, but saw no other choice. I would have preferred an earlier, less severe administrative action. So I'd be very interested in which administrative action you feel would have been appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs) 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Clearly, I feel no administrative action should have taken place then either. Even less so, hours later with an absolute paucity of justification. The point I was making was that that was the time for reprimanding ND, not this morning. Also, could you please remember to sign you post with four tildes, not five as you have just done  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid" they say. Although ad hominem reasoning "is essential to understanding certain moral issues". nagualdesign 19:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the pyramid contains some truth, it's not as straightforward as you guys think. For example, I've had veteran editors swear up and down with a straight face they weren't edit warring despite article history indicating otherwise. When I give them diffs and a pointer to WP:EW it's still, "that isn't edit warring!". At that point it's basically, "Look, I'm an admin, I say you're edit warring, revert again and you'll be blocked." So essentially we're at the top of the pyramid but what's the alternative? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All joking aside, I have no problem with having admins. I think they're a good idea. The only problem is when you get the odd bad apple, and the solution to that is composting. It can be difficult to hold them accountable though. nagualdesign 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian told me earlier that "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so", which I can only assume implies a kind of 1RR. At that point it's basically, "Look, I'm an.. oh wait, you're the admin!" Even Ivan, who seems like a decent sort (even though he blocked me a few weeks ago), unblocked me today, confirming that the block was a load of bollocks, but still tried to assert that I was in the wrong for talking back! nagualdesign 20:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Actually he said, "this is your second recent block for what amounts to "talking back" to an administrator who was trying to give you advice" (ie, top of the pyramid). nagualdesign 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::Sorry (you'll like this NeilN ;) )—I've been away creating content ;) actually, getting into a right tizz over a Henry Howard and a Robert Howard who may be the same person :o —but the thing about 3RR, nagualdesign, and it being possible to edit-war without being in breach of it, is true. If the intention has been demonstated to edit-war, then the number of reverts is academic: think of those edit wars in which two parties only revert each other say, every two days,but they do so for a period of weeks. Bizarre, I know, but it's happened. That probably what SH was trying to say. I agree with the analogy of "bent cops"—or, more expansively, in any walk of life (I'm talking generally now, rather than in the confines of today's events) there's always people who get promoted beyond their abilities, or they get promoted accordng to a criteria that subsequently changes but they don't. The latter, I think, is generally what we encounter on WP. It's rarely (if ever, surely?) malice; hardly ever incompetence; but mostly just being used to operating in a Wikipedia from another age. Rember the old saw, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there"...? That sums a lot of shit up, and not just on WP.

Now, those bloody Howards.... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Nagualdesign: See, Sebastian was right. Look at WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." If six editors all revert each other once then they're all edit warring. However I don't think edit warring is always a bad thing and have no hesitation in stating that I sometimes edit war to keep cruft out of Wikipedia. WP:1RR and WP:3RR are what happens if you take edit warring too far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for what it's worth, if I recall correctly, I reverted Sebastian only once, then later I reverted his sock an IP user only once for removing an entirely different comment. You (Neil) also reverted that IP after they removed the same comment that Sebastian had removed. Does that mean you, me, Sebastian and the IP were edit warring? nagualdesign 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: Yes, and I have no hesitation in stating that. Edit warring is a normal part of editing on Wikipedia. Anyone who says different is either fooling themselves or lives in Arbcom a glass tower. :-) But you can't let your edit warring become disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the context here. This was Sebastian's final edit for the day before he went off to wash his socks. He's basically blaming me for an edit that you made, telling me that I should read the guidelines (this was just after he said I "have friends who help [me] avert WP:3RR"). I've only ever reverted Sebastian once. I fail to see how I was being disruptive. nagualdesign 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, I understand that part. And I'm sure you can understand that when I was discussing this with Sebastian earlier on my talk page he was very much talking about me. I only brought it up here to counterpoint your "I've had veteran editors swear up and down with a straight face they weren't edit warring despite article history indicating otherwise." Anyway, let's just get on with life, eh? The only thing left for me to say about this is thank you for being one of the good ones. nagualdesign 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's that. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, '99... I'm trying to write but the bloody place is like Grand Central Station tonight :D how's tricks? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that link is so not to Grand Central, where I'm headed in and out of tomorrow. Should be an interesting day getting to and from work, with the Women's March going on tomorrow. Write on. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it's sort of our equivalent  :) except made of wood and plasterboard. As it says when you pull in: "Welcome to 1975." Safe trip! I think I've completely ballsed up Robert Howard (knight), but it'll wait til tomorrow. Good luck! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pretty good start to me. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I've worked out that Harry and Rob are (were!) two different people  ;) only slightly embarassing then. My excuse is that the dog was sitting on the family tree at the time. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dolly Rudeman 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) 03:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dolly Rudeman. c.1920-c.1930.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm tagged F1. I enk yow. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 06:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SN, Although not stated I did effectively withdraw the AFD - Had I been aware of the history I would've held off going to AFD and redirected myself :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought on it I realised that me redirecting wasn't me withdrawing .... somehow I apparently confused myself!, Anyway thanks for spotting that I've reclosed the AFD as Speedy Keep and then undone the article redirect and then redid it .... Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Cheers: Don't really matter though, the creator (I think) had a COI bigger than fucking Big Ben. Should still be sacked. Take care! Always good work with you 23:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, it's been over a month since you said it might take some time to address the three "citation needed" templates, and for a DYK, that's quite a long time. At this point, I think it's fair to give you until the end of January to finally address this issue, which was raised well before then. I hope very much to see progress by then. Please reply on the nomination itself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article Dolly Rudeman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dolly Rudeman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bravo! Drmies (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • S'yours too—couldn't have done it without you- my Dutch is no better now than then, ongelooflijk ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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…
730		Joseph Bonanno (talk)	Add sources
468		Somerset House (talk)	Add sources
2,321		Duke of Norfolk (talk)	Add sources
156		John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk (talk)	Add sources
42		Battle of Nájera (talk)	Add sources
4,255		Son Heung-min (talk)	Add sources
61		Reading education in the United States (talk)	Cleanup
102		Extensive reading (talk)	Cleanup
46		Balanced literacy (talk)	Cleanup
7		Organisation of the Scottish Labour Party (talk)	Expand
260		Hindi literature (talk)	Expand
50		Writing assessment (talk)	Expand
778		Viola Liuzzo (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
350		Pargalı Ibrahim Pasha (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
47		Key Words Reading Scheme (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
744		Language acquisition (talk)	Merge
562		National Insurance (talk)	Merge
164		Florin (Italian coin) (talk)	Merge
219		Aero (chocolate) (talk)	Wikify
1,851		Brian Dennehy (talk)	Wikify
550		Accelerated Reader (talk)	Wikify
4		Hap Hadley (talk)	Orphan
2		XinMo Li (talk)	Orphan
6		Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 302 (talk)	Orphan
49		Pointe Saint-Mathieu (talk)	Stub
15		John Grey (knight) (talk)	Stub
21		Jenny Marra (talk)	Stub
82		Dead or Alive (novel) (talk)	Stub
22		James Kelly (Scottish politician) (talk)	Stub
8		John Scrope, 4th Baron Scrope of Masham (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Jogi.jewels, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Pontvallain 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 Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank yooou Mr. Alex  ;) in your own time of course. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bottle of pills. Its been great to see that wiki is so teeming with Fall fans, and I see Hit the North and Totally Wired now have articles. This made me splurt a mouthful of the aforementioned medicine, for a number of reasons. PS, gutted about Cassianto. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your line too. It's great to see those articles, and I like the sound of a few more appearing in the near future. I can't really help, I'm afraid, not having a musical bone in my body (so just like-!) ...yes; appears to have Left the Capitol. Hopefully not for ever, but. Incidentally, for the main article,I came across something a while back tha compared his fragmented lyric style with Joyce and Eliot. Not necessarily as holding comparative place in the cultura paean, but as an modern exemplar of the style. No idea where it's from now... Cheers Ceoil. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I will leave this fucking dump" - Dublin is our London! That said I do *love* London, but I get the Manc POV; miserable bastards, as of course are Corkonians. Can wait until Dublin burns to the ground and we inherit the earth. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Corcaigh abú, eh Ceoil! Not so sure that "The S.W.W.R.A." has such a ring to it though  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you rather underestimate our recent advances in cow and sheep catapulting technology. I'll say no more, insider trading and that, but if I ws you and had a local Paddy Powers....Dublin is dust. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have. It used to be my local! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Well, as I say, I do like London, and have family living there. Especially love Brixton Academy, the acoustics, mind was blown when the Primals did Screamadelica a few years ago, was on some dodgy yokes but it didn't matter. Yes I am an old bastard. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're struggling again with the referencing in John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu. In the #Arms section you've got an sfn which starts but doesn't finish, and a ref which finishes without having started. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David; it's a work in progress atm, and the 'in use' template rather smacks of ownership, no? But we'll see what it looks like at draw of stumps  :) thanks for looking out! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Take a look at The Marquess now—slow but sure, just British Rail  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Pontvallain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Patrimony and David II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uurgh. 🍍 >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually check the Journal articles to verify the term "male expendability"? I have not seen anything with that term, rather it appears to me to be original research. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [3] >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...my Google search brought up a variety of terms, including "male disposablity", "disposable male myth", and so on. That's what made me wonder if maybe it was an attempt to coin the phrase. I went to ProjectMed thinking maybe it was a medical or psychological issue, and so far, got this response, so I went to Project Sociology for more input. The title may well be notable enough. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm...Just FYI, there's still a 49% that's yuuuge...huh?! copyvio:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Winged Blades of Godric: and Serial number. You both removed the speedy on the above article. The original CSD was at 87 % and was originally removed as a reverse copyvio which it wasn't which is why I replaced it as it was an error on the part of the editor. WBoG then changed his edit on my talk page to say that it was a simple quote that could be removed, as I pointed out it was nearly all the article and not a simple quote. He then removed part of the copy vio to drop it down to 66 % as I said on the talk page the article creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and I have serious doubts about his notability. So I believe that I was justified in replacing it and as I don't beilieve he is notable I will not rewrite the sodding thing because that is not what I am here for. Copyvio is a good way of catching and removing indesirable content and one of the first things that we are told to look for as new pages patrollers. Now you have removed the tag the history contains all the copyvio and I think you should ask for it to be redacted. As per this discussion that you may both have missed on the NPP talk page it has been suggested that articles created by socks should be deleted as per WP:DENY even if they are notable. This was a golden opportunity to remove it quickly and easily. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I and Latreia were the editors who discovered the mess and launched the SPI as well as the concurrent cleanup, believe me when I say that someone is notable.Obviously, you can take him to AFD.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have already said that the first decline was either a mis-click or a script-error.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I do not see the connexion. Just because you reported the article creator as being a sock puppet I should believe you when you say that the article that he created is notable? I think I am missing something here. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, sans the quote and the list (which shan't be ever included whilst checking for G12), check the copyvio % again and whether it deserved a G12.Furthermore, as to copyvio is a good way of catching and removing indesirable content, desirability isn't decided by you and the venue is that way.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Did you read the NPP talk page thread that I posted? Did you read WP:DENY? Of cource if the article is rewritten then there will be no copy vio, that is not the point I am trying to make. And I still don't understand why I have to believe you when you say he is notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It was excessive use of non-free text under a fair use claim (quotes and citations). We typically just remove the text and make a note on the talk page in those cases. The stuff that wasn’t the quote didn’t pass the threshold of originally. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Diannaa just finished the cleanup with revdel, so should be good moving forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Domdeparis, Winged Blades of Godric, and TonyBallioni: Thanks for this ladies and gentlemen. Glad it's all sorted out out now; bad time to go for a sandwich huh. The only thing left unsaid perhaps is in regards to the speedies themselves. The original G12 clearly did not appply after the first reduction; G5 applies but slightly subjectively relies on what is considered to be "substantial" input from other editors; and A7 would almost certainly have been removed—I would have, as it proffers a credible claim of significance-which is all it needs to do to avoid A7. AfD is, of course, as the feller says, thataway. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this editor hadn't been a confirmed sockpuppet I would probably agree with you but should we be wasting our time with probably non-notable articles that were 87% copied form elsewhere by a sockpuppet? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do agree that WP:G5 was the best criterion to have filed under (and yes, you should probably have done so orignally!) As I said, though, it's not infallible, as it rather peskilly rests on the "no substantial edits by others" qualification, which can be—debatable? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indeed; master wasn't blocked when the page was created. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that's why I didn't use it. I believe that is only for when a user creates a sock to continue editing after having been blocked for any reason and this sock is then blocked. But the sockmaster has to have been blocked beforehand. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two different things: if a sock creates articles and the master is found to be socking, you'll have difficulty in avoiding a stampede of admins (collective noun?) to delete the articles of the sock (not the master), whether the article was created post- or ante-blocking. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Radmin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Radmin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Serial Number 54129! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent news, MatthewVanitas, thanks vry much. The system works. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; the topic itself may be valid, but it's hard to tell since the bulk of the citations are to the company itself, their forum, their manuals, etc. Bluntly, we don't care what a company says about itself, we care what outside experts have to say about it. Detailed explanations of a product line, with no indication these details are taking the media by storm, are usually big red flags that a page is an advert rather than a neutral description. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewVanitas: Quite  :) Happy editing! ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bust, I thought you were the originator since you're listed as the Submitter. I was wondering why such a draft from an experienced editor. Ah well, back to the salt mines go I. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

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

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

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

The system generates milestone(??)-notifications up till how many edits?~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it stops at 1k IIRC. The worst is moving an image on commons and getting a half dozen notifications thanking you for your contributions to the Klingon wiki quote, ASL wiktionary, and ancient Egyptian wikipedia... over... and over again. GMG^talk 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, the system pinged me to come here? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea about milestones. Probably until one tells a commons admin to B*gger off and gets indeffed (*I love a party with a happy atmosphere*).
  • Who pinged you Drmies?
  • And...just one lone edit can make a small difference  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I see--I get a notification anytime "cute" is used outside of article space. One of the developers must have liked me. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Klingon wiki quote, ASL wiktionary, and ancient Egyptian wikipedia" - well that's my day made! simple things, simple minds - TNT^❤ 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your inbox:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disinfect it regularly, officer  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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