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 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 17 as User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 16 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

• For progressing? Battle of Pontvallain * Cèllere Codex * Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey * English invasion of Scotland (1385) * English invasion of Scotland (1400) * John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke * John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont? * John Clifford, 9th Baron Clifford * John Minsterworth * John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk * John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu * John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk * John Rykener * Nicholas Exton * Parliament of 1327 * Percy Glading * Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal * Robert de Umfraville * The Greenock stowaways * Vale Royal Abbey * William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville * William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros * The 'Wonderful Parliament' (1386)

		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

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]

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]

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]

The article Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		Thanks for your Peter Sellers edit, and your edits to my talk page. They are quite funny! Good night! Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 19:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot about RfA, prbably more than most because I pioneered the biggest ever investigation into it and I've voted on literally 100s of them. One of the problems of being an admin, is that people jump on us for anything they can and just love taking our comments out of context. You said 'extremely unfair'... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We'll talk about it more when you run for adminship, and based on your history, I might even nominate you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kudpung:I've clarified my remarks @ORCP. Pour l'autre', I never had you down as a masochist... ;) —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Guy, this is my favorite barnstar of them all, from one of the funniest editors to grace the halls of PorcinePedia.

The Fat Man is pleased to present his favourite taskmistress with this vile, pungent wheel of wriggling Casu marzu in recognition of her heel-nipping, whip-cracking, arm-twisting, irrefutable-offer-making illustriousness. The product of her beneficent tyranny is evidenced here and, like, a zillion other places. Please age this cheese in a cool, damp place (away from direct sunlight) until a suitable occasion arises for its reemergence. Enjoy responsibly. Your friend, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (And re-transmitted to Serial Number 54129 from SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted you to have it along with my apology (posted on Eric talk, since we have a long history of using and abusing each other's talk pages). The Fat Man wrote the April Fools blurb for the year Ima Hogg ran. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008 I hope you enjoy, even though I didn't re-write to tailor it to you ... t'would be a crime! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ​ Oooh rotten cheese  :) it's like putting my feet on my talk page :D You diplomat you  ;) Thank you very much, that's really appreciated—very kind! I saw your message on User:Eric Corbett's talk page, no problems there (deliberately pinging EC so as to send him a ~twentieth notification!). I liked the backhanded compliment, "you can write so you might not be an asshole" :D Hah! Sorry you don't pop to FAC at all, but I don't blame you, I saw you and Eagldyth discussing it, and frankly, if its wasting hours of your life to do something that's just meant to be fun—then f*ck it, it shouldn't be causing you grief. Happy Easter, and thanks for the cheesy note —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you can write translates to you maybe you're not one of the insufferable children in here ;) Happy Easter to you, too! (I ruined the potatoes, but then, I Don't Do Food!) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing the article on Buckton Castle. It passed FAC the other day, and the process and the feedback from everyone involved help make the article better. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, Richard Nevell, although I doubt I was particularly useful to you...even so, give me a shout if you ever have more of that vintage up for candidature or review, I'll be happy to look in.

On a lighter note, it's verging on the inspirational to see that a FA review can actually take less than err...less than three months 🐾 🆒 happy days! And thanks again for the message! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's very generous of you! It might take a while, but I do hope to have more for FAC in the future. It takes a team of reviewers, and everyone's effort is appreciated. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This canned message. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ How odd. I installed the script, and it told me I had reviewed the page; I thought "I shouldn't have done that"—so immediately unreviewed it. Why did you get that message then? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You all likely hit the button at similar times or it was discussing patrolling the revision instead of patrolling the page (a function we don't really use on en.wiki, but that the software has). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. I thought there's reason I shouldn't review that page, or something like that, that's why I ask. Thank you and Tony too. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No not all Ammarpad, please carry on—and thank you, in fact, for the reminder that I should also review more pages than I do! I'm just sorry you got that canned message like that. Take care! And thanks for messaging here, it's a reminder to pay a little more attention in future. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thank you. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	This was thought-out way too brilliantly:) Who sez that the locus of WikiData can't be of any help?! ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Some light for you!
	In order to increase the amount from "little enough" to "some". Cheers from your friendly neighbourhood linguist. bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea:, what have I messed up now then?! Or are you celebrating? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was just idly talk page stalking and reading your reply a few sections above :p --bonadea contributions talk 17:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Ctrl+f is my friend...thanks for the extra light, Bonadea, but surely, your presence here is more than mere light, casting the radiance of Cherubim and Seraphim—etc. Inspiration ran dry at that point  :) Still—thanks very much! How goes the marking? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, that is very sweet. Marking proceeds apace, thank you - the end isn't quite in sight just yet, but I know it must be getting closer. I hope your application was/will be successful! :D --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture by the way... and "outrageously" now it's here, that's has doubled the number of pages it's used on!!! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, beautiful, isn't it! --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number, just to say no need to apologise for your comment - I took it as a compliment. It just isn't something I think I'd really be interested in. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, I'm always bumping into you on spam patrol, so it seemed like a good idea at the time. But thanks for being gracious Melcous; I also should apologise for the—ahem!—typo in the message; "Malicious", indeed! That's the old predictive text busting WP:CIV on my behalf I'm afraid  :) Anyway, the important thing is that you do what pleases you, no more, no less. Thanks for the message anyway! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a beer after this stern talking-to. bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct response to it is d’awwwww. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ToBal, it's appreciated that he's appreciated  :) not really a puppy though, he was thirteen—check out the ole grey chops!  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All dogs are puppies regardless of the age :) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaaay!!!! :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting smaller and smaller, just like: her hat is getting larger and larger —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number. Liked the personalised talk page message. It is a nice touch. However, I can't claim credit for the article as I split it out from Zinc finger nuclease where I decided it was too WP:Undue. I am not sure who created most of that, a lot appears to be merged previously from Zinc in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, although there already was a section pre-merge. Looking through the history most was added here. Thanks for your new page work. AIRcorn (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the nomination for autopatroled. Thanks for that too. AIRcorn (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're OK with that Aircorn; I imagine you can always give it back like the other permissions if you don't want it...I see what you mean about the article. It's good work though, because, in a way, you've started a new article and at the same time improved the other. So, no images then! Unless one has access to a Cambridge laboratory I guess  ;) (although it's no joking matter really, apologies). Hope all's well! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I applied years ago, but hadn't created enough articles. I wasn't sure what to do about the HIV article, but felt this was the best option. All good here, although getting busy in real life. AIRcorn (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 July 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Attapeu dam collapse, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is, in fact, still static, although I have addressed the reviewer's points, to a greater or lesser degree (indeed, there were not many of them). Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I will continue the review soon. You should not have to wait this long. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Many thanks for involving yourself in this, it's very kind of you to take on others' work as well your own  :) let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: No problem, Thank you! AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cèllere Codex you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cèllere Codex 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 Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129. Firstly many thanks for the additions to Siege of Berwick (1333). Useful stuff there, you clearly have access to some handy sources. Secondly, as you are no doubt aware, the article picked up an assessor for its GAN, Zawed, on 29 July, who gave his initial thoughts on 5 August. Obviously the assessment has been put on hold while you are adding significant material to the article. I was wondering if you know when you are likely to have finished adding to the article. I am not trying to hurry you - this is Wikipedia, you can edit what you want, when you want - but, again obviously, Zawed doesn't want to waste his time commenting on an article which is in flux, nor I mine on addressing them when it may be pointless. As the creator and nominator of the article you will understand my interest. Thanks again for the input. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<Holding place until tomorrow morning UTC> —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129. I am assuming that your lack of reply and lack of editing for the past week implies that you are not currently planning on adding new material, so I shall get on with addressing the GA assessor's comments. Let me know if my assumption is incorrect. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Who can put it better than yourself? "I think it best if I avoid interactions with this editor, at least for a while or I may be a little too "free and frank". And there you have it. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find that enigmatic. I hope that I have not been too free and frank. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Murder of Deborah Linsley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Murder of Deborah Linsley 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, down to more important matters, are you up for a pint or three at Pendrel's on Sunday? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Yep, I'll be there. Saw your note on Mediawiki and agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts  :) I'm going to Soho first (to take a photo) but it's only 10" walk away and I guess i could be there from 1-ish. What were your plans? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Source

• Blud, V. (2017). The Unspeakable, Gender and Sexuality in Medieval Literature, 1000-1400. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-84384-468-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

We are a renowned provider of IELTS certificate without exam! Bishonen | talk 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Brilliant  :) I made sure I to take the addy down first! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, you can buy it online! And we have professional hackers! Bishonen | talk 14:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

On 16 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John/Eleanor Rykener, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1394, John "Eleanor" Rykener was apprehended for committing a "detestable unmentionable and ignominious vice" in Cheapside and later confessed to having had sex with both friars and nuns? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John/Eleanor Rykener), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, Hope you are doing well. May I know what exactly in my comment offended you so much and why ? My intention was not to offend you in any way and I am surprised by the way you did. I would like to know more but not on AN since it is off topic, which is why I am posting here. If you can clearly point out here by quotes, "what" and "why", I am offering to redact any offensive words. peace. --DBigXray 11:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you choose to chime in at Template:Did you know nominations/Godfrey's Cordial, it'll be a pleasure, as to my first DYK run:-)∯WBG^converse 14:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Many thanks, great stuff, i've done so. I've made a couple of tweaks , a suggestion or two, but nothing particularly radical, feel free to revert or contest if you wish  :) everything I do is contestable. Well, with the exception of wot that character above is moaning about. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Greenock stowaways 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 Figfires -- Figfires (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Greenock stowaways you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Greenock stowaways for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominate it again, I'd be happy to review it--please ping me. There's nothing there that's not fixable. Catrìona (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: You are very, very generous, and after all my raging there, you make me humble. You are very kind. I will be the first to admit that articles I nominate are unlikely to be perfect—I write them and nominate them, often in the same stroke, otherwise, I totally forget. And there's usually such a massive wait between nominating and reviewing that there's plenty of time to fiddle and tweak. Clearly not so this time! I'll be the first to admit I forgot about the lead (d'oh!), and would have given the prose a copyedit too, but if the rest of the review hadn't been so passive-aggressive WP:IDLI, we might have actually got somewhere. One lives and learns. Thank you again for your offer (and, btw, for your DYK review the other day, I forgot to thank you). I hope you have a good weekend! (One that isn't centred on reviewing my turgid text, of course!!!)—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ricky Megee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ricky Megee 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:Ricky Megee for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, that really puts Lionheart0317 and my petty squabble into perspective. You should be cloned a few thousand times and set to work on rewriting the whole of Wikipedia :) You must expect me to ask, though, why you've not mentioned the disputed parentage of Philippa Bonville, as you agreed was appropriate when you gave us your third opinion here.  —SMALLJIM  22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smalljim: Many thanks for the kind message. I'll day here that I'm not particularly wedded to either perspective, but, yes, my position has shifted slightly, to reflect what i discovered in the sources. Perhaps I should post on the article talk page? Having said that, and whatever gets said elsewher, I have to say I'm not a fan of Lionheart's approach to collaboration. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a tiny point that the pages of argument must be in line for lamest edit war of 2018. But it does have some significance because of a Royal descent for living people if Philippa (P) was Bonville's (B) daughter.

A quick summary... Before Lionheart started on the article it excluded P from B's children; in this version solely citing Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) - extracts are readable via Google Books (pp. 256-7). Lionheart was right to amend this, but he went too far, leaving P as B's daughter, citing J. S. Roskell and History of Parliament (1993). He has vigorously defended this position.

My position, after some research, is that P's parentage still isn't known for certain despite years of genealogical research that have attacked the problem from many different angles. In 2017, Richardson set out the reasons for his decision on soc.genealogy.medieval here. We don't know why the editors of History of Parliament made their decision. Lionheart goes on about new research of 2018, but this hasn't been published.

So in order to not mislead our readers, I think we should include a (very!) brief note of the uncertainty.  —SMALLJIM  15:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued by this edit and its immediate revert. What does it indicate?  —SMALLJIM  12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: It indicates I then forgot to post on the talk :) Anyway, that's what the original footnote said in the previous version, so it's up to you and Lionheart to chew the cud and decide how you want to proceed. My original "willingness" to compromise with the footnote in the original version was because, with the paucity of sources available in it, it seemed as if there was indeed a divided body of opinion. But the re-writing of it has—for me—cast new light. Personally, I now lean towards the view that it's stretching credibility slightly to say that there is any kind of debate among historians when I have provided ~70 sources (and remember they are only a (large) percentage of the sources I actually examined), all of which represent a substantial cross-section of late-20C. scholarship and all of whom say only that she was his daughter. And, indeed, the only character cited as saying otherwise seems neither a specialist of the period or, arguably, a historian at all (a genealogist?)—to the extent that they are cited no-where else in the article. Personally, I suspect that it's verging on the WP:FRINGE, probably originating with a 17C. palaeographical error, although that's my personal OR of course. Thanks for the update, and let's hope this is resolved soon! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that reasoned reply – it's a pleasant change from what I've been dealing with recently! There would be no point in attempting to discuss further with Lionheart (he's already gleefully restored his full-fat footnote and refs to one of the other relevant articles – note the edit summary). I do think you're underestimating the important part that RS genealogical researchers (in this case Fitch-Northen (1979) and Richardson, thrice) play in examining the facts that historians who, while writing about something more interesting, will just mention in passing and will copy sans check from their sources. And surely you're over-egging somewhat the number of sources that even mention Philippa – certainly not all 70 of yours do! But I think on balance that I won't pursue this further. I don't want your GAN to go down through the possibility of continued edit warring, and not mentioning the issue at all is closer to what it should be, compared to taking up half of the entire article as it did in Lionheart's preferred version. Thanks again.  —SMALLJIM  18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: Not at all, I think if you think it's significant enough to mention, then so it should be. Indeed, a) I didn't know about Norton-Fitch, so there's another, and b) true about the number of sources which mention her at all = very few, which is really why I just can't get excited about the significance. Some of that attitude is really unsavoury, and I certainly don't like being namechecked like that. Perhaps change the footnote I added to what you think it would say? Never mind the GA, green blobs are irrelevant to most  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's very decent of you. I'll give it further thought.  —SMALLJIM  10:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its on my list. Hold though! Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Holding tight!  :) cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Fresshe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Fresshe 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about changing your user page. Thought that spam was just ignored for months but funny enough after I published changes, I decided to double check the history and saw that someone else tried to do the same thing ;D. So I reverted my own edit and wrote the apology in the edit details but when I saved it someone else had beaten me to it. So I decided might as well write it here. So that's basically a long way of saying sorry. BOOMERANG. Thanks User:Galobtter and User:Serial Number 54129. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DJ-Joker16: No problem at all, that has happened before as you say. If it keeps happening, well  :) and thanks again for Galobtter's UP stalking (funny enough, I didn't even get a notification of either of your edits there). Take care all! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		A beer on me!
		For your amazing work on articles. I'm drinking a nice Vegas yard of Guinness right now and would like to share in the fun. Drinks on me. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is reverting addition of personal attacks on article talk pages an exemption of 3RR? It isn't listed but I think it should. (Not related to the message you've posted on my talk page just now) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Abelmoschus Esculentus, it's absolutely related to the {{uw-ewsoft}} I left on your page. Here, you make a snide remark that shows you are fully aware of the implications of WP:BLANKING, yet at User talk:73.102.218.240, you revert them six times on their own talk, in direct contravention of WP:BLANKING: Including—and you'll like this—five times with WP:ROLLBACK ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Then, on User talk:45.33.13.52, you rollback another IP for removing—as you know they can—warnings from their page—all the while threatening them with admin "attention"... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes... I was not aware of reverting talk page blanking from IPs (since no one warned me because of that). So will you say misuse of rollback again?

Despite my "contradictory" actions, is this a violation? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine you need me to say say "misuse of rollback again", after you were

• advised on your talk in July, in which you acknowledge Yes I take full responsibility for this. You can request for blocking me for this if you want;
• or when you were advised on this talk by an admin the same month in which they describe your use of the tool as less-than-ideal;
• or also in July, when the same admin suggested you take a little more care;
• or this month, where you acknowledged that its removal was a possible consequence of misusing the tool, saying I don't wanna experience the situation L293D is experiencing right now. I feel empathetic about him regarding another editor who had recently lost the right, and with whom, ironically, I also commiserated)...
  Repeating myself would be an indulgence, I think.
  As to your question; well it's pretty poor behaviour from the anon, certainly, and I don't necessarilly disgree with occasional use like that. But, as with most things on Wikipedia, there's better ways of dealing with them than repeatedly reverting (unless of course one is merely interested in boosting one's edit count...). In that particular case, RFPP was the obvious choice. But really, WP:ROLLBACK and WP:VAND are pretty clear on their (pretty restricted) scope; the operative word re. vandalism, etc., is "obvious": if you have to ask, it probably isn't. But you don't my opinion. When in doubt, take them to WP:AIV. Better safe than sorry. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jim1138_&_User:Abelmoschus_Esculentus.
Yes, that's my problem. I always think that reverting is the first (and possibly the best) way to deal with these stuff. However, since their edits are not WP:Vandalism, WP:ANI should be the better place for the report instead of WP:AIV. An admin has just advised me to be caution with reverting (again), WP:DFTT and WP:DRC. 3RR is a policy. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your point? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am too obsessed with reverting
2. IMO, ANI is better than AIV in this case
3. This case is closed in ANI
4. I should not have restored the warnings and cause this trouble.

~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AE: You are a little too enamored of the revert button. There are other, more effective ways to deal with problem editors. Initiating a series of reverts with a vandal or a troll just feeds the troll. There are a number of valuable suggestions at WP:OWB for you to consider instead. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your just tagged Draft:Joseph Kalimbwe for quite deletion "created by a banned user. Please revisit your tag and see that it was never created by that user. Kind regards SouthAfrica1994 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Garage man in Chicago.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I think I probably misunderstood the threshold of originality with that one; feel free to speedy it G7 or F3 (or whatever's most suitable) if you like, no point it taking up valuable editorial time and energies. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@(talk page watcher)s: I was so bemused at the idea of doing a thing like that that I double-checked: and no, of course I didn't upload it  :) it was one André Koehne on a (supposedly!) Commons import license, which now seems mildly improbable, but hey... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Koehne uploaded File:Garage_man_from_Chicago.jpg, per the file history you uploaded the .png Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I couldn't see any history? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ricky Megee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ricky Megee 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this version caused me to nominate. The version you contested is ok. See TP. Kleuske (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the "TSCM America® is a Certified Veteran Owned Small Business"-bit. Kleuske (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Kleuske, it's been a long day. That was a definite call, I agree, and even now prob worth a revdel. Can you get RHaworth to delete the page and then recreate it without the spam revisions. Thanks for letting us know. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. Kleuske (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you think this is properly tanscluded/done? There has been no activity at all. Or maybe tail-end voters are waiting for someone else to comment there? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah  :) Usernamekiran, it is on the list OK, so I don't think there's any transclusion issues. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your original article Rose Street Club, truly a fantastic piece of work! Carrite (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for this piece of anarchist history! czar 04:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial, I wrote this just in humour. Apologies if it came out wrong. Wishes as always, Lourdes 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ Last time I got drunk and edited, my bocklog doubled in length  :) "'Never More', Quoth the Hydration". —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]