User talk:Serial Number 54129

A sudden realisation.

"Remarkably unremarkable."

This user is very lazy. Please feel free to do his work for him.

This user opposes the Wikimedia Foundation's arbitrary, opaque, and dictatorial office-banning of administrators when the community and ArbCom are more than capable of handling the issue themselves.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 26 as User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 25 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

This page was last edited or modified by Serial Number 54129 (talk).

• For progressing? Alec Eist * Becky Sharp * Cèllere Codex * Der Rosendorn * Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey * Dominic McGlinchey * Duke and Duchess of Windsors' tour of Germany, 1937 * English invasion of Scotland (1385) * English invasion of Scotland (1400) * Eric Easton * Fédon's rebellion * Greenock stowaways * James Brock, the Monson Motor Lodge swim-in and civil rights in St Augustine, June–July 1964 * 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 * Marc Bloch * Murders of Richard Roose * Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four * Nicholas Exton * Percy Glading * Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal * Pope Adrian IV * Robert de Neville * Robert de Umfraville * Siege of Oxford (1142) * Slovak Three * Vale Royal Abbey * Wonderful Parliament

From the absence of study comes the absence of women in history.

Sylva Federico, Federico, S. (2001). "The Imaginary Society: Women in 1381". Journal of British Studies. 40: 159. OCLC 931172994.

Crawford family of the White Mountains

I've been reviewing what (mostly) I did at Crawford family of the White Mountains recently but can't spot any other sources that might be useful. I'm wondering whether to take it to WP:FA and what you might think about that. It's a long time since I bothered with the GA or FA processes and I probably have a stack of contenders. Not the best time for making trips to the library, of course, but everything at this article seems to be available online should there be any challenges. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted

Serial Number 54129,

I reverted your re-placement of the admin top icon. I did see you edit summary. Yes, it's his page, and users are given wide latitude on what can be on their page, historically (per ANI cases) anyone who had an admin icon on their page that wasn't an admin, had it removed ( WP:INACTIVITY pretty much makes it clear that any indicator that a person is an active sysop has to be removed. It goes to mis-representation. I realize RHawroth was an admin, I have no feelings one way or the other about him not having the bit. Him continuing to display the bit, however, would confuse new people, and that's not ok. Think of it this way, if I was displaying an administrators top icon, I would totally expect it to be removed for the same reason I removed it from RHaworth. It's not correct, and it's a mis-representation of my status on Wikipedia. Please leave it off his page unless he becomes an admin again. W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, someone with an all lives matter signature is a paragon of righteousness...Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae Actually, yeah. I believe all lives matter. It's not a racist slogan, don't make it into one. W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter 16:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting you perceived it that way, isn't it? Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: yeah, User:Wekeepwhatwekill is basically trolling with that, and more to the point, has effectively admitted it. ——Serial ^# 16:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you can imagine the shock on my face right now. Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• SN 54.129*10^3, I agreed with you about this 6 months ago, when he'd just been desysopped and it looked like kicking him when he was down. But RH has had ample time to remove it himself. I'd find something better to do and not get into a whole thing. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to figure out how to add a swastika to my signature. Not, of course, because I'm a Nazi, but because it's an ancient Indian religious symbol. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Make sure to add a confederate flag too since "it's heritage not hate" and "it's just about the states rights!..." Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yes, I remember; personally, I think the logic holds, since he's not catagorised. Anyway, the next campaign, I guess, will be against User:Wekeepwhatwekill's current talkpage, which is clearly against WP:ACCESS and MOS:CONTRAST. What a productive time we're all having. ——Serial ^# 16:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: @Floquenbeam: you know, edits like this and the combined equivalent of a blue lives matter scheme talk page and their signature really makes me wonder if they're here at all...Praxidicae (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Good spot. It all makes sense, put like that. ——Serial ^# 16:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

also this from their userpage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the contrast from their talk page. I have also warned them about BLP and attached the BLP discretionary sanctions alert. Will follow up. El_C 17:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged earlier but I'm in the middle of something, but I think I should take time out to comment before this blows up too much. Yes, I did warn tell warntell Wekeepwhatwekill a few days ago that their signature was noncompliant (see my note on their talk page) and he made an effort to comply with the definitely-forbidden-by-policy bits (using a different user's name, and such). Although I'm also strongly of the opinion that putting "ALL lives matter" into one's signature, in this time of racial unrest in the western hemisphere and especially with the emphasis on ALL is a strongly racist anti-Black political statement. However, there is genuine (i.e. not just far-right assholes) debate about this, and admin tools are not supposed to be used to enforce one's political opinions, so I left it with advice that other users were likely to see it as deliberately offensive, and I thought implied he should expect to deal with the fallout from that. I didn't go so far myself (you can only beat a dead horse so much) but according to the guidelines I've read, this is an appropriate concern to raise at WP:RFC/U. What I'm saying here is I don't think Wekeepwhatwekill is trying to be disruptive on purpose. I didn't bring up the rendering issues with their user space at all because my note was loaded enough with to-dos already, but that definitely needed to go too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC/U shut down 6 years ago; I think ANI would be the place now? I'm not really advocating for that; there's something to be said for knowing right away, with a simple glance at a signature, what kind of person you're dealing with. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, I guess we've done enough for one day  :) now I can get back to my total-utter-fucking disillusionment with the content fucking creation process farce and continue to wonder why I fucking bother position of previous. All the best! ——Serial ^# 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, not WP:RFC/U, WP:RFC/N. Always good to check shortcuts before you post them. I'm sure ANI is fine too but it's more of a drama pit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: When I first heard "Black Lives Matter", my reaction was "All Lives Matter" too. Then I read up about how it's used. It doesn't mean "Only Black Lives Matter", it means "Black Lives Matter Too". Nobody is saying "Only Some Lives Matter". Saying "All Lives Matter" ignores the current issue, which is that black people are treated far worse than white people, being incarcerated and killed in far greater numbers than white people. By saying "Black Lives Matter", we hope to advance society to the point where it's no longer necessary to say it because we're treating all people with the same rights and dignity. --Danielklein (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Maximum blocks!

RANDOMIZE USR 54129

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User_talk:Number_57#July_2020 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Perhaps you do not like this "automated" edit, too.. who knows CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: please stop pissing about leaving templates on experienced users' pages, and especially please stop treating the place like an MMPRPG. Also do not delete as personal attacks edits which are clearly not personal attacks as you did here. ——Serial ^# 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

🙄 is probably the best response to this template issuing. Also, hope you’re doing well, my dear integer :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, are you telling me that grinding my blocking skill doesn't get me better blocking power? GeneralNotability (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

To misquote Robert Fripp, "Dropping a civility template isn't" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting observation

here, especially considering it isn't even the correct SPI, so they've watchlisted an SPI for a master that doesn't exist? Really pokes holes in their claims...Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sheet, sorry about that Praxidicae, didn't notice those period points! but yeah, watchlisting noon-existant pages in advance? Brilliant  :) Shall I move it? ——Serial ^# 14:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll move it later, it'll be a good exercise for me as a clerk since page moves are the bane of my existence. Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

sorry please dont ban me but why did you lot delete the JackMasseyWelsh page because he is a real person

SmallishBeans (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi:, yeah this^^^ mention of it seemed like a dogwhistle, but those editors you named (Realoliver9912 (talk · contribs), Liamevans000 (talk · contribs)—by the way, did they both create it?) are neither blocked nor seem to have gone on a rampage like this one, so maybe it's a coincidence? I couldn't really see any connection except that they're clearly all British/English/Welsh...and that's hardly an offence in itself  :) ——Serial ^# 12:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Liam created it twice, Oliver once, and WorldMapper2 once at Jack Massey Welsh; Aloder27 once at JackMasseyWelsh; Sebbikul, Cloclo4, and Real Wiki99U, once each at Draft:JackSucksAtLife; and 47.42.195.76, and 90.253.110.125 once each at Draft:JacksucksatLife.

Throw in all the fan accounts, JackSuc..., Jacksuck..., JackMasseyW..., and Jack Massey W..., then the more I think about it the less it seems socky, just fancruft. I still haven't figured out why your talk page got picked on. Be well, Cabayi (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

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 Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your userpage

I saw the note to Ritchie333 - hope you don't mind me taking the liberty. Happy to see the bathrobe cabal back in action :) GirthSummit _(blether) 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that Girth Summit. Yeah  :) the only problem, it makes me want to drink wine. Not helpful at 0700! All the best, ——Serial ^# 12:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's justified and ancient. Whoo. Whoo whoo.

Refs

References

A one-sided warning

Why did you place a warning on my talk page but not Melcous's? I am well aware of the sensitivity of COVID-19 pages since I am one of the daily updaters and the notice is prominently displayed at the top of the article. The only edit I've seen from Melcous on that page is the one reverting my edit. --Danielklein (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Peer Review newsletter

Depiction by Raphael of Aristotle in the School of Athens receiving some useful feedback during an active peer review

Hello to all! This is the second Wikipedia Peer Review newsletter, containing some updates relating to peer review since the initial newsletter in August 2018. I intend these as infrequent newsletters that can be used to interact with interested editors and also let people know about relevant changes.

Thanks again to everyone who has been responding and helping out at peer review, it's great to see the venue so active.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, want to include something in the next newsletter, wish to receive these, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or add / remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What's new?

New closure script

There's a new script you can use to automate the process of closing a review. Now, for most reviews you just need to click a button (hurray!)

Developed by User:WritKeeper, to whom we are all very thankful, there is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:

• Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
• When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab

I've added it to the list of tools here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools#Closure_script

Volunteers list contacts

Editors can now choose to be contacted periodically by User:KadaneBot with unanswered peer reviews in specific topic areas. If you'd like to be contacted, please visit the volunteers page and update your preferences

Peer reviews on "Article alerts"

If you're a member of a WikiProject, you may have noticed peer reviews getting included in the article alerts lists, which is sure to enhance our subject-specific visibility.

How can I contribute?

1. Answer some reviews! A list of unanswered reviews is here: (WP:PRWAITING)
2. Add yourself to the volunteers list, and receive regular updates about unanswered reviews here: (WP:PRV)
3. Or, if you only want one request a blue moon, Click "watch" on the list of items that somehow missed getting added to the unanswered list (here). Sometimes, these reviews linger for months!!

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Peer Review users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
308		Ukrainian People's Republic (talk)	Add sources
220		Julia (Nineteen Eighty-Four) (talk)	Add sources
733		Ingsoc (talk)	Add sources
7		Universals (Central Council of Ukraine) (talk)	Add sources
132		Murder of John Alan West (talk)	Add sources
75		Cross-border flag for Ireland (talk)	Add sources
5		Calotes nemoricola (talk)	Cleanup
70		Persecution of Muslims by Meccans (talk)	Cleanup
215		Islam in Sweden (talk)	Cleanup
2,783		Lord of the Flies (talk)	Expand
9		Almgren–Pitts min-max theory (talk)	Expand
88		Revilo P. Oliver (talk)	Expand
164		Telescreen (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
283		Proles (Nineteen Eighty-Four) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
263		The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
182		Emotional lability (talk)	Merge
47		Moderation in Islam (talk)	Merge
1,833		Ventilator (talk)	Merge
697		We (novel) (talk)	Wikify
70		Religious views on love (talk)	Wikify
44		Changes in safety practices after the sinking of the RMS Titanic (talk)	Wikify
8		Shahan Ali Mohsin (talk)	Orphan
8		John Robert Radclive (talk)	Orphan
310		Hanging in the United States (talk)	Orphan
18		Beetle Boy (talk)	Stub
190		Gunpowder empires (talk)	Stub
4		Daniel O'Donoghue (Irish politician) (talk)	Stub
94		Inner Party (talk)	Stub
2		Kilcullane (talk)	Stub
143		COVID-19 pandemic in Chhattisgarh (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) 23:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A School History of England

You may possibly get a kick out of this.

While working over on English Wikisource I ran across A School History of England (1911), which is a school (targeted at K12, I think) history book by C. R. L. Fletcher and Rudyard Kipling. All of it is remarkable for the sheer audacity of the authors' political views shining through (it's downright polemical in places).

It seems it is mainly remembered today as the first publication for several of Kipling's poems, which he wrote specifically for the project, and Kipling and Fletcher were, as best I can tell, equal(ish) coauthors of it. This isn't really my area, but it seems it was sufficiently successful to have gotten multiple editions, and later republished for a general audience as A History of England.

In any case, I found it remarkable and figured you might find it interesting. If not, I apologise for the intrusion. --Xover (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Naughty! :) Can I add my welcome to this? Hope you enjoy the place and stick around. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

hi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why did you revert my edit to User:favonian's talkpage? And you also reverted the revert on the Tulekuvan article

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Knock it off

Knock it off with the patronizing talk page comments. Keep the discussion to one channel, please. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Re [1]

Personal attacks against other editors (clueless users like User:Calton), calling other editors (dishonest), threatening to harass others (notwithstanding blatant invility (Quit fucking up)), more incivility (Grow up, grow a spine). Nah mate, you get the template. All the best! ——Serial ^# 10:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Also noting (from WP:ANEW, but for the record:

• Comments such as this—especially to a blocked user's User Page which you know they cannot edit—is outrageous: a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the recipient is indefinitely blocked.
• Comments such as "and then tries to retrofit some bullshit argument to justify their original actions. Let's watch the next instance of this unfold... now", rather suggest that this whole episode was engineered by CAR to get this very result. That's wholly unproductive behavior.
• This edit summary, is a clear personal attack, considering its contents (fuck Codename Lisa).
• Is C A Russell not aware of the policy regarding logged- out editing, which instructs that editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors. In this particular case, it would appear they did both deliberately. ——Serial ^# 11:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)