User talk:Serial Number 54129

"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= 23 as User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 22 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

This page was last edited or modified by 99.203.40.43 (talk).

• For progressing? Alec Eist * Battle of Pontvallain * Becky Sharp * Cèllere Codex * Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey * Duke and Duchess of Windsors' tour of Germany, 1937 * English invasion of Scotland (1385) * English invasion of Scotland (1400) * Greenock stowaways * John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke * John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont? * John Clifford, 9th Baron Clifford * Henry Clifford, 10th 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 * Loveday, 1458 * Marc Bloch * Murder of William de Cantilupe * Murders of Richard Roose * Nicholas Exton * Percy Glading * Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal * 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.

Greenock Stowaways

Hello:

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

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. A couple of things I noticed. In the Ill-treatment section it reads:

Kerr, hearing of this, declared that the boys would henceforth get "the ground of their stomachs before they get any more", (Sfn|Donald|1928|p=54) but the footnote says: Refn|”Specifically, Kerr swore, according to Roughead, that the first mate would "give the ground of their stomachs before they got any more".sfn|Roughead|2014|p=15}}|group=note

Of the two mentions – the one in the text cites Donald, one as a footnote cites Roughead. One says "get" one says "give". I'm not even sure what this quote means. The citations should be checked and corrected if necessary.

Also:

It's unclear how many boys had shoes. "the stowaways had no shoes between them" or "since some of the boys had no shoes" – is that "no" or "some" – needs clarifying

In the Arrivals section the quote box mentions some had, some didn’t have shoes.

Arrivals:

Mentions five stowaways were put off the ship, where are the other two?

Same section, then we have "Of the six boys, Reilly and Bryson were keen to leave…" Seven boarded in Greenock. This just needs clarification.

Best of luck with the GA review.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my post

It was 2 minutes sooner than yours :-) It is nice to know that great minds were on the same track. HeeHee. MarnetteD|Talk 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cheers MarnetteD, sorry about that  :) at least one of those minutes is testament to my steampowered PC! ——SerialNumber54129 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries SN. If your PC is a big as this it must take up a whole room in your home :-) MarnetteD|Talk 12:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeing your mention of White Horse whiskey prompts me to leave you this pic for your enjoyment. JW has a whole line of GoT whiskeys in honor of their last season. Glug Glug. MarnetteD|Talk 12:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Brilliant! New slogan: "Stupor is coming" :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Superb!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page

Please discuss your changes on the talk page of Waqar Zaka. There appears to be a question about some of the sources, which is of course a valid discussion to have. I have added 2 more sources and am seeking engagement on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've responded there. Your sourcing is/was poor enough, but the NPOV language—worse. ——SerialNumber54129 21:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any NPOV problems - the language that I used is in multiple reliable sources, and doesn't seem to be either praising or damning anything. It's just very plain factual language. Perhaps on the talk page you could explain what you find POV about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained to you, multiple times. ——SerialNumber54129 09:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marc Bloch

The article Marc Bloch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marc Bloch 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for A Short English Chronicle

On 27 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Short English Chronicle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 15th-century Short English Chronicle described King Edward IV as receiving instantaneous notification of treason from God? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Short English Chronicle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A Short English Chronicle), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Loveday, 1458

On 1 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Loveday, 1458, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1458 Loveday, which was intended to unite Henry VI's nobility, only resulted in uniting his enemies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Loveday, 1458. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Loveday, 1458), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Can you review the sentence in the lede containing the word 'money'. Your original was:

although the Yorkists were bound to pay large sums in compensation, this was done by with money already owed the by the government.

Recently this was:

although the Yorkists were bound to pay large sums in compensation, this was done by with money already owed by the government.

I've just changed it to

although the Yorkists were bound to pay large sums in compensation, this was done with money already owed by the government.

But that reads very strangely. "owed by the government"? Should that be "owed to the government"?

Shenme (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shenme: apologise for the delay getting back to you. I couldn't find an easy way to phrase that, in quite a few attempts, but the point was (is) that the Yorkists made the payments to the dead Lancastrians' families with money that was owed to them by the government already (unpaid wages were a fact of life for Henry VI's nobility!). If you can tweak and improve it, go ahead  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah fun memories

Hello SN. The last bit of this post calls back to a memorable moment from Yes Minister. Jim Hacker writes "round objects" on a memo from Humphrey Appleby. Later in the episode Bernard Woolley tells Hacker that Appleby asked him "Who is this Round and what does he object to?" :-) My dusty old memory banks have forgotten which episode this happened in but it still is an all time funny - or is that punny - for me. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk

@MarnetteD: It was "Equal Opportunities"—rather apt considering current goings-on  :)

But yeah, that was exactly what I was alluding to, safe in the knowledge that not one in a 1000 here would have the faintest idea what I was talking about. Except—except—I forgot about your truly encyclopaedic knowledge of british TV. Absolutely effing incredible! ——SerialNumber54129 17:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Now you are making me blush! Great job on remembering the episode!! Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Away with the learning of clerks, away with it!

On 5 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Away with the learning of clerks, away with it!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Peasants' Revolt in Cambridge, Margery Starre danced with a mob that sacked Corpus Christi College and burnt its charters, shouting: "Away with the learning of clerks, away with it!"? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Away with the learning of clerks, away with it!), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville

The article William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

/* September 2019 */ I AM THE SOURCE SIR MENELIK I MADE THIS DR OCTAGON ALBUM FOR KOOL KEITH

http://www.unkut.com/2005/06/holdin-new-cards-scaramanga-interview/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/sun-large-records-star-of-the-empire-mgmt-a-publ-70986832/detail/recent-activity/shares/ Finally the full true story about the Dr. Octagon concept is out!! Read now!!!

1. "Dr. Octagon/Dr.Octagynocologist)-Bulk Records/Mo'WaxRecords/DreamWorks Records 4 songs 1."No Awareness b/w Bear Witness" 12" 2. "Dr. Octagon" 3. "On Production" 4. "Biology 101"

The Dr. Octagon concept was developed by Sir Menelik for Kool Keith in 1994. The multi-syllabic, on beat/off beat style of rap cadence with futuristic/sci-fi context was the calling card of the Dr. Octagon album. Assistance and inspiration also came from Alexander Calderon of the rap group "Raw Breed" Alex Calderon had a group named "Dr. Bizarro" that disbanded that had a similar plot in pre-conception to Dr. Octagon. Alex and Sir Menelik worked on demo's for songs together at Ice-T's studio in LA at the time. The original concept song that started the whole Dr.Octagon recording process was the "So Intelligent" featuring Kool Keith and DLS (produced by T.R. Love UltraMagnetic Mc's) off the Cyclops 4000 demo TR Love was making at the time for for Sir Menelik in 1994. T.R. Love also worked on demo's at that time for Raw breed and Kool Keith. After some time the duo of Sir Menelik recorded the Dr. Octagon track (produced by K.Matlin). Dan Nakamura had Bulk Records that wanted to put together a project with Kool Keith. Stretch Armstrong and Bobbito on 89.9 got the So intelligent demo from Sir Menelik. That is how the Dr. Octagon project got its legs.Sir Menelik had made the demo's recorded during that time period a two part project -Dr.Octagon demo's were for Kool Keith, and Cyclops 4000 demos were for Sir Menelik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Menelik aka Scaramanga (talk • contribs) 11:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC) You claim to 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. And yet, you do commit the same offenses against me and countless other users!! You are a hypocrite!! Stop flagging my user page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Menelik aka Scaramanga (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Sir Menelik aka Scaramanga: I have no idea what you are talking about. The page has been deleted. Please do not recreate it. Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 12:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we've done to deserve this

I'm going to move your recent edit to the Fram PD talk to a new section, but I'd also like to invite you to air any grievances you might have against the clerks or the arbitrators here, on my talk page, or by email to me. I'm curious to hear what you think we should be doing differently. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you should waste your time, SN. This got me nowhere - I was ignored in the end. The clerks seem to be almost as incompetent as the committee at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@SN, can I direct you to my reply to FPAS here? On this one, at least, the arbs and clerks can't be blamed; given the nature of the case if they didn't follow the established procedure there would be people screaming for heads on poles, and much as I may think this "sectioned commentary" business is a Really Bad Idea it's the way things have been done for the past four years. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duke and Duchess of Windsor's tour of Germany, 1937

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duke and Duchess of Windsor's tour of Germany, 1937 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Coterel gang scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Coterel gang article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 18, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

October

... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for the article, and sorry that I missed the FAC with the introduduction "Gang of ruffians, hiding out in Sherwood Forest, duffing up royal officials, fair maids and boozy priests, history releases not their secrets. The Coterel Gang: A likely historical antecedent of the Robin Hood legend. AKA more fun and games from the early 14th-c. when the King wanted to go to Scotland but ended up in Derbyshire, and those who wanted to stay in Derbyshire went to Scotland."! - I'll open a peer review for Clara Schumann, today, the day her piano concerto graces the Main page ;) - ... her image graces even more. - I don't know what to respond to PMC who tells me a ban is a ban, the day I celebrate that my favourite editor told a freshly banned (OTD seven years ago) "go on with life, have a laugh". Along with the creed of the banned, it's in my edit notice, and premeditated to survive me. More on my talk, with the face and the smile. Now going to improve Anke Fuchs who died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Fuchs is now on the Main page. Thank you for comments towards article improvement in Ritchie's case, - nice to be not alone. I typed a lot (because I was called out for my ping above) on my talk this morning, ending on "should be unblocked", - and then found out he was ;) - "don't believe in miracles, rely on them" (Mascha Kaléko). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally, who has several things in common with Schumann! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. - Enjoy your break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

UKLG

Hey Serial Number. Since you left a brief comment there, I wonder if I could interest you in a prose review at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ursula_K._Le_Guin/archive1. It's nice to have comments from folks who usually write about very different topics; it helps me find things that I missed. No pressure though. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of North Korean Embassy in Madrid raid

The article North Korean Embassy in Madrid raid 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:North Korean Embassy in Madrid raid for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caker18 -- Caker18 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of North Korean Embassy in Madrid raid

The article North Korean Embassy in Madrid raid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Korean Embassy in Madrid raid 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 Caker18 -- Caker18 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duke and Duchess of Windsor's tour of Germany, 1937

The article Duke and Duchess of Windsor's tour of Germany, 1937 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Duke and Duchess of Windsor's tour of Germany, 1937 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your close at ANI

I don't know, #54129, but closing something in pink is probably against some guideline somewhere. This may count against you if you run for administrator! Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait...

...the wife, the cook, and her lover kill a canteloupe? You can't make this up. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

For a work in progress, you might've just hit on the DYK! ——SerialNumber54129 15:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

For some truly oddball articles

		The Oddball Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of numerous very fine articles true to the tradition of, um, well, the one which you seem to have started yourself. Long may it prosper. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: pray tell! Surely Mowbrays, Bonvilles etc not so oddball 😊 hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 11:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

But it is the others that stick in the mind. Good thanks. Trying, and failing, to get back into some content creation. (People keep distracting me by sending me reading matter, the bounders.) You? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Heh  :) ​ I was thinking, how about a co-nom on Battle of Pontvallain? It might ned a little tidying first, as I haven't looked at it for sometime, but it should be doable, and it's rather up your street isn't it? Or perhaps a little late than you prefer? Although I see that as I do, you enjoy a movable feast. The bonus, of course, is that we share results for half the work. What say ye? ——SerialNumber54129 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A co-nom sounds good to me. It also has the attraction of allowing each of us to run a separate independent FAC at the same time. My last FAC was from 1355, so I am breaking out of the 1345-46 ghetto. Actually my next two FACs were going to be from 256 BC and 1945, just for a change. How would you like to approach it? I could give it "the works", then you could comment on all the things that you don't like about the result; or I am happy to use any other approach you prefer. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

GtM, I've never done it before. Well, a co-nom anyway :) how about you give it your treatment? I'm aware that perhaps even the layout, structure might be adjustable: let's have a look with what you come up with?

The Battle of Cape Ecnomus is a nice article. Well out of my comfort zone, fair play to you! ——SerialNumber54129 18:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Re co-nom: me neither, which means that I have no preconceptions/haven't a clue what I am doing. I will try to start tomorrow. Note that I usually take several runs at an article. So me going right through an article making changes is not necessarily an indication that I think I am finished.

Ecnomus - that was part of the idea. It was interestingly stretching to try and get it into a comprehensible article. Much the same applies to my getting sucked into the late-Medieval stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Right. I have done some work on Pontvallain. It certainly seems FACable, and probably without too much further work - you have done a good job there. I have done a fair bit of copy editing, MoS-proofing and shuffling things around; now is the time to scream if you really don't like it. If you do, maybe you could:

1. Have a look at the query on the talk page.
2. Let me know if you are happy with the third paragraph of "Background". If you are I will see if I can find some references.
3. Have a read through and flag up anything you're not happy with or which needs further information or work.
4. There are five unused references. Do you want to see if you can find something in each of them to cite the revised text? (It would be nice to keep them.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

note

this also removed someone else's post (Ritchie's) - not sure that's what you intended. — Ched (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Ched, have restored the post to its place. ——SerialNumber54129 07:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Order of Brothelyngham

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Order of Brothelyngham 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In Use tag

Please respect the In Use tag and allow me to work through the sources. The article is far from finished. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gleanon409:, with all due respect, the {{inuse}} tag does not override WP:OWN which is English Wikipedia policy and so as about as important as it gets. Please read that page if you have not been directed to it already. Furthermore, much of your additional material is, as I said in my edit-summary, unfortunately—but frankly—not wholly encyclopaedic in either content or tone. Such additions are not only not protected by the {{inuse}} tag but should, in fact, be summarily removed. Have a good weekend! ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

Just so we're clear, I perfectly understand the purposes of SPI and I had plenty of reasons to be suspicious (most of which have already been outlined in great detail). But because of the my BLP violation and the length of it, certain administrators chose not to listen.

But that's neither hear nor there. While I stand by my statements in regard to the IP user, I have chosen to move forward and leave any actions in the hands of WilyD. The BLP matter itself has also been resolved, and I have no interest in dwelling on this any further. DarkKnight2149 18:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Darkknight2149#CVUA offer and User talk:Darkknight2149#Jasper Rine where the matter was handled. DarkKnight2149 18:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it certainly sounds like the issues have indeed been resolved...until next time. One thing history teaches us (blah blah) is that those who do not learn from their mstakes are bound to repeat them. I hope it's not a truism. Have a good weekend! ——SerialNumber54129 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, history already has repeated itself. The last time I was accused of casting aspersions was with Twitbookspacetube in February 2017, who frequently parroted and tag-teamed with other users while acting in bad faith. Do you know what happened? Nobody listened to me... And seven months later, he was banned from Wikipedia for all the things I warned everyone he was doing (and then some).

The reason I'm posting this is to clear up any residual doubt. I absolutely did violate BLP (inadvertently), but the "cast aspersions" claims are incorrect. One thing I have observed at WP:ANI is that it's a lot easier for (hypothetical) dishonest users to game the system when:

A) A hypothetical ANI thread is a drawn out, unorganised, and complex mess that's difficult to keep track of. That's actually why I insisted that people talk to me about BLP on my talk page instead of there.

B) When there's a sliver of truth in their claims. In this particular case, the sliver was that I violated BLP.

Either way, I have no more intention of harping on this. The past is the past, I just hope that I helped clear some of this up with you. Have a great weekend. DarkKnight2149 20:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Uh-uh. Well, accusing editors of socking without evidence ("there is no credible allegation of WP:BADSOCK"), is an aspersion, which has been reiterated by the abitration committee on numerous occasions ("An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe", for ex). But it is the doubling-down that is less than reassuring. ——SerialNumber54129 16:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Order of Brothelyngham

The article Order of Brothelyngham 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:Order of Brothelyngham for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Serial Number 54129, I notice that you have not started to respond to my review of the article yet. The article is due to be failed in three days' time if the issues I raised have not been addressed. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Delayed reaction

Thanks for the laugh NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notification

A discussion relevant to your actions has been started by another user here. It doesn't name you by username, but the edits specifically are relevant to yourself afaict. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Littlemore Priory scandals scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Littlemore Priory scandals has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 26 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about a "pathological prioress, negligent nuns, a blundering bishop and unchaste chaplains; it rather says it all about Littlemore Priory that the only character that comes out the story looking even mildly positive was—in a career first and last—Cardinal Wolsey."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Brian, we miss you

And today, thank you for Keldholme Priory election dispute, "Yorkshire. 1308. Archbishop throws weight around and nuns cart his backside down the road a piece (metaphorically speaking). It's not quite Castle Anthrax, but if you're after administrative angst and argumentative archbishops, all combined with a hefty (healthy?!) dose of immorality, get in there." - I have a FAC in need of comments, DYK? Sorry, no immorality, just a child born by an unwed young girl, and text containing "ban complaining". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Requesting block review: Katfactz". Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks, replied there. But how does your block of that editor involve me, may I ask? Although I appreciate the notice in any case. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 07:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You made the full protection request so I thought you might have more insight into the dispute, that's all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk page watcher

I learn one or more new thing everyday on WP. I new there were page patrollers, but not a talk page watcher. I appreciate knowing that. You answered one question about number of articles created, can you answer another for User:Drmies. Just curious because all that I see of his contribs is reverts and blocks, well there are a few non revert edits, but by and large nothing but reverts and edits. I did not think that was the purpose of an editor, and an admin is an editor, is he not? Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Order of Brothelyngham

The article Order of Brothelyngham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Order of Brothelyngham 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm so used to editors opposing items that are listed on ITN/R with comments similar to yours, that I assumed you were trolling. Sometimes I need to remind myself to assume good faith more often. Please accept my apology. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Muboshgu, thanks very much for the message, and also apologise for my rudeness. You see, I've been working on medieval York (IRL) for the last few weeks now, so it's always the first thing I think of when I see "York". Talk about bizarro! I fel such an arse afterwards—population of 200K or 10 million, how easily confused are they! "D'oh" as they say. Anyway, no hard feelings? Hope you're keeping well! ——SN54129 16:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You sneaky so and so!

Double voting Support and Oppose in the EvergreenFir RfA? Trying to have your cake and eat it? ;-) Prob best to get rid of one of them, unless you want to triple up and pop in a quick Neutral vote too...? - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, I like the sound of that last option, the trifecta. Let's go with that. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you Adam and Eve it. Thanks, both. ——SN54129 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

RtH

Thanks - I have no idea how I reverted it in the first place! - SchroCat (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: S'okay—I've already emailed T&S about your deliberate misuse of the rollback tool :p

Apologies for the delay replying by the way...was slightly involved in the minor matter of a—ahem—17x-expansion :D hope all's well! ——SN54129 16:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Washington Redhawks

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Washington Redhawks. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Hey friend, I just reverted you. Check out the rationale for my changes on the talk page. If you disagree, I won't edit war and we can just discuss my arguments for the changes. GergisBaki (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WT:FAC

Regarding this comment, editors have in the past requested or started RFCs about the FAC coordination process. We continue to be sensitive to the possibility that some folks may feel that way, and respectfully open the door to such requests. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this is apparently the Diffless Society, I'll join. 2012 or thereabouts seems to be about right; since then, processes affecting the wider project and internal tweaks of criteria. Cheers, Laser brain. FWIW, (some of) those questions you were asked at ACEXXIX were fucking outrageous. ——SN54129 12:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Brutal

Serial Number 54129, You have been quite brutal at ANI. I hope I have a better experience with you in the future and look forward to working with you on the project. Have a great weekend and a great thanksgiving. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Blunt, rather than brutal. ——SN54129 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Xiao Zhan

Hello, please take a look at this article Xiao Zhan. I find some of the content to be WP:PROMO and WP:FANCRUFT, but not sure if I am right. 160.120.31.230 (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles like that are absolute troll magnets, certainly! Thanks for the heads up. ——SN54129 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

PKK terrorists

Calling PKK terrorists as freedom fighters is extremely offensive. Readding the template is not justified.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: stop edit warring over another editor's user page. You are not the arbitor of acceptability on Wikipedia. ——SN54129 19:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, offensive material such as saying that you are a terrorist and calling the terror groups freedom fighters should be deleted.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You've made your comment at the MfD, now stop edit-warring. ——SN54129

AN-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Better late than never :D ——SN54129 10:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Review your changes at OpIndia

In one edit you removed my so much good faith edits, here is my version and compare with latest one. You removed following things:

• Template of Indian English
• Portal's HQ, country, languages and chief editor
• Justification from the side of editor over accusation (WP:DUE)
• Current ownership of company (and restored ownership at time of 2018)

Just a humble request to revisit your changes with calm mind and by assuming good faith. You will see what you have reverted. Regards,-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have not been blocked yet. ——SN54129 08:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your wish...

The Closer's Barnstar

...came true (maybe). I can't remember where I saw the discussion but I remember you being part of it. I threw together a little animation you can add to a customized wikilove message for whoever you want to recognize as a closer. The animation is set to repeat 3x - anything more might drive people nuts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: That is, frankly, brilliant! Thanks very much! I think that discussion might have been here—in any case, that's gonna be my first use of the new barnstar. LOL yeah it might drive some people nuts...on the other hand I could watch it all day. H'mm, which might say more about me than anything else  :) Hope you are well! ——SN54129

^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Special recognition example

	The Closer's Barnstar
	Your thoughtful and concise close at diff/ did not go unnoticed. Please accept this token of appreciation for your excellent work. <sig>

I'm going to add this to User:Atsme/Banners This was the only way I could see if it worked using Wikilove customized. Hope you don't mind my using your page to do so. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Yes indeed, it was the Peter Brook book....thanks. TheLongTone (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Serial_Number_54129.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Don't you mean, "My Lord, the Queen dost demand your urgent presence on pain of death"  ;) Many thanks for this though! ——SN54129 16:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Blackadder quotes. Have you seen my alternative account?-- P-K3 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Good one! :D ——SN54129 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well, that didn't go to well for Kazemita1—this was in fact a retaliatory report for their edit-warring on People's Mujahedin of Iran ([1], which is almost the only place I've encountered them, so it's hard not to see how they found their diffs except by going through my old contributions. However, they forget, perhaps, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions)—and I see 78.26 has saved Kazemita1 from further embarassments and/or stains on their record. I expect Kazemita1 is somewhat glad that none of this got mentioned at ANI.
  However, I also suspect a subtext to your close, 78.26...and if so, it's been taken on board loud and clear. ——SN54129 17:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to take it loud and clear if you want, but it wasn't really directed at you. I seriously doubt Ritchie received an education, and sensitive types really shouldn't be at ANI in the first place. Context, context, context. Now, if you had used said edit summary at Shining Time Station, I might have tossed a minnow your direction. Mostly I saw an opportunity to head off some utterly useless drama, as I've seen this topic of discussion unfold in the past. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear SN, if you were trying to say "Good fuck everyone" at [2], you made an unfortunate typo. Bishonen (unfortunately impervious to subtexts) | talk 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

The Bishonen, I reckon you eat subtexts for breakfast  :) ——SN54129 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, I'm Hirolovesswords. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mike Kelly (gridiron football) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

For watchers: I have, of course, already left a message on their talk page, and this is retaliatory. For a flavour of Hirolovesswords's approach, it reads Edit-warring to shoehorn in a potential BLPVIO? Take it to talk, get a consensus of editors who agree with your assessment and there you have it. But as you must know better than me, BLPs always verge towards caution. But no, they appear to prefer to edit war their contentious material back in. Repeatedly. ——SN54129 20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well then!

Congrats, you're the latest entry to my "what do you mean you're not already an admin?" list. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Beaune Altarpiece

Hello SN, could you please elaborate on your close here? What is "Incendiary" about this? I have reverted until explained per WP:TALKCOND (premature closure concerns). I would have waited, but given your talk page header about little to no internet access for an indeterminate amount of time thought it best to revert to allow the discussion to run a more natural course in the meantime. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well SN. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, MarnetteD, back at ya!  :) ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You're a guinea pig...

I promoted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/archive1 tonight, my very first FAC promotion. Hopefully I didn't break anything. If I did, let me know, please! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Speaking on behalf of my client, so far so good. It all looks fine. I am sure that he would want me to pass on his appreciation to you for your pressing of the button, flicking of the switch, and all of the other oh so necessary backgroundy things that you need to do. Of course, if by morning it has all fallen apart, legal proceedings will be initiated before you can say "I was only cleaning it and it went off." Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, well, your client might discover that they'd mostly get a big-ass pile of books from me, since I seem to spend most of my disposable income on those. Of course, given that a number of them are medieval history books, maybe you both would like that... uh, oh. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! Runs round room squeaking in excitement. Sadly I am increasingly coming to resemble a character from one of SN's articles. Maybe I should leave his talk page in peace. Or maybe not, he never seems to do anything useful on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Glad to be of use! I'm sure it all went perfectly, many thanks and "Welcome"; although that may be congratulating you on your choice of goblet  :) ——SN54129 12:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

An elevation

Woo hoo. Bill Bonville is finally elevated to his appropriate station. I wondered if he was going to die of old age first. It looked like a bit of a slog. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Cheers. Don't worry, I'm sure Pontvallain will go the same way :p ——SN54129 12:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Did you find an answer to this question? You didn't get a response but for that type of question WP:VPT might be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: thanks very much for that, I appreciate the advice and will do so. Season's greetings to you! ——SN54129

Benjamin Butterworth

Thanks for the revert and ponting that out, I hadn't looked far enough down the history - my bad! --2.99.1.51 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, .51, easy mistake to make! All the best, ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethos Capital

Hi. I had, indeed, consulted WP:NEWSORG before removing the tag. It seemed the main concern was accuracy which, in this case is the main justification for using the primary sources. There have been some vague allusions to double-dealing in secondary sources, which is why it is important to accurately specify those personal connections. How do you construe those as unreliable? I had also looked up WP:SPS which, in fact, says nothing about press releases. As to blog, I'm not sure to which ref you refer. The statement by the Internet Society CEO? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Six sources, three press releases, one blog = an article with only two WP:RS ∴ a question of notability. ——SN54129 12:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Might this be sufficient to confer notability? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore!

Feck! That was quick! Thank you and hope you have a great 2020! JennyOz (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

It's a good idea to not talk to people who've been on Wikipedia a lot longer than you have as though they're newbies. In particular, you seemed unaware of this when you posted to my talk page about the National Rifle Association wherein you ignored my warning against posting unverified information to Wikipedia without so much as discussing it beforehand. This is not edit-warring. It's called the way Wikipedia works. -- Frotz(talk) 17:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Frotz: Act like a noob, get treated like one, sorry. And you can attempt to redefine edit-warring all you like: reverting multiple editors in spite of a talk page discussion is not "how Wikipedia works". As a so-called experienced editor, please see WP:3RRNO. All the best. ——SN54129 22:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't posted on this issue at Talk:National_Rifle_Association. Had you done so, you might have some validity to your retorts. Making statements like "Act like a noob, get treated like one" is not a good way to convince people that you're being civil. -- Frotz(talk) 05:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Lucky I wasn't uncivil eh  :) Apologies for the delay in replying Frotz. Tbh, I wasn't sure I really had to after observing Mathglot somewhat forensically lay out precisely where you had gone wrong...multiple times :D ——SN54129 21:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator Page

The problem has been fixed with sources and references, no need to tarnish my name Coloursred1 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem certainly has been fixed...for 31 hours, anyway. May I suggest a change in approach on your return? ——SN54129 14:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• What prompted my emergency blocking was your refactoring of other people's comments on the notice board. That quite crosses any line -- Deepfriedokra 14:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

derp

I might be blanking but I added two g4 tagshere because there are two discussions due to some sneaky efforts by a vanity spammer but I can't recall if there's a way (like g12) to add multiple discussion links in one g4 tag? Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: apologies, I didn't look closely enough at the discussions. You're right, of course; I can't think of a means of combing two discussions in one template either. A shame it doesn't like |xfd2=; I wonder if that could be added? ——SN54129 18:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be extremely helpful (and so would the ability to do g5+g4 with the actual fields available.) I'll ping @Amorymeltzer:. :) Praxidicae (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I haven't forgotten about G4/G5 fields when multiple! Been a busy 1/3/6 months, but I'm hoping to get it taken care of later this month/early February. As for the multiple xfd parameters, that'd obviously require a change to {{db-g4}} first, but I'm not sure how often that shows up. Maybe (as far as Twinkle goes) doing the custom for that situation (>1 discussion) would be easier. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

My comments at the AFD

here you removed my comments. I had already put them on the article's talk, page. Do NOT remove my comments. You know better. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I already know how you feel about the ARS based on the ARS mocking image you placed on the Levivich talk page. I am further discovering how you feel by your refactoring of the AfD. I went to refactor my own strike of the duplicate !vote by the nominator and saw that you did. Just now I saw that you erased the comments of another ARS member. Can we please let this AfD proceed without you refactoring the AfD? I have no gripe with you and I have seen your good work on other AfDs. I had no reason to believe that you thought negatively about the ARS until now. Anyway, here is hoping that we can let the lake AfD proceed and move on. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: both of your behaviors in that discussion are suboptimal. 7&6, you know better than to discuss anything other than the deletion review on an AfD page—and that definitely includes commentary on user behaviour. It is extraneous and belongs on te talk page. As does this discussion. And, Lightburst, you're hardly countering the argument that "ARS don't tag team to get their own way" by coming here four minutes after 13. And although you are correct that the nominator (or anyone else) does not get to !vote twice. Nut, per WP:REFACTOR, it always preserves the original author's meaning and intent—as I did, and as you did not. I'm afraid your argument here is as strong as that you "made" on Levivich's talk: that you even consider accusing me of refactoring you, when you had refactored someone else...I'm sure there's a Tom Stoppard in that somewhere.

Anyway, get ye both to the talk page if you want to have any more off-topic discussion. Or AN/I, of course—but that doesn't seem to have gone too well recently  :) all the best! ——SN54129 15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I had an edit conflict with 7&6 here on your talk. When I saw what you erased the comments of 7&6 after what you did to my own strike of the duplicate.. (AfD is watch-listed) I came here. I think it is best to discuss rather than take unilateral action. I was asked to refactor my strike (on my talk page) however you decided to do it yourself. We all have our own beliefs and I have not ABF of you. Please do not ABF of me. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you had done what you were supposed to do in the first place, you wouldn't have had to be "reminded on your talk": pointing out someone's errors is factual, not an assumption of any kind of fith. ——SN54129 16:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps consider spending less time on drama and more time building the encyclopedia. Your blunt/brutal comments are designed poorly. I suggest minding your own business - I no longer AGF of you. I would have left the entire comment stricken. The closer can get the flavor of the tendentious nominator through one of their 15 other comments. Lets steer clear of each other since we are both on WP for different reasons. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid your passive-aggression is what is "designed poorly" (whatever that means). You're lack the experience to understand the full nuance of "good faith", which you have not shown, I fancy, since that AfD began. And I include your discussion with Levivich, in which you demonstrate nothing but the purest, unalloyed WP:IDHT. And accusations of dramamongering sit poorly from somene who started the ANI thread in question. Not your finest hour, I admit.

  FYI, if you have the lack of foresight to accuse me of not building the encyclopedia, then you must expect me to see this and raise you this. Goodbye. ——SN54129 18:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Referring to your 22% in the main space. I hope you work with instead of against, and stop outward aggression. Good work on the article creation. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the dangers of statistics; yes, something else that's a little more nuanced than at first it seems. You see, however hard one tries, it's difficult to inflate one's mainspace percentage point when so many were dumped into main space in a single edit, almost fully formed. Never mind, I'm sure ANI will have something to say about my mainspace edit count if it's ever an issue. ——SN54129 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

We will have to agree to disagree. The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization of the article (and what the article should be) are pertinent and fair game Don't touch my comments EVER. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Oooh, ALL caps eh? Well, we can continue this at your (oh-so-successful) the AN/I thread. ——SN54129 16:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Think again. I did not start that thread, and am not a participant. Your sarcasm becomes you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 13, you're right, and I've struck that portion, apologies. Ironically if you had have already taken part, I would not have had to notify you of my mention of you. Swings and roundabouts... 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Happy New Year to you, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, 13, but since I've already commented on that thread multiple times, this is mildly unnecessary. But, Happy New Year to too, even if the world does seem to be going to hell in a handcart as we speak. ——SN54129 16:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We are of one mind at least on that. Idiocracy turns into Wag the Dog. Australia burnt down. It makes me want to cry. PTSD, is not a 'delusion' but it is a very real 'disorder'. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

13, it's an absolute fucking tragedy, Australia, and as usual the animals suffer the most. But their has been heroism too; at least that's a reminder of how adversity can be confronted if not overcome. As for the other: yes, I agree with that. ——SN54129 18:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've heard it's not true that Nero Fiddled while Rome burned. But Trump played golf and started (not yet, but it's coming) two wars to distract the American voter from the impeachment trial, while the world ... You know the rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Der Rosendorn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Der Rosendorn 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No edit wars

Please don't edit war on this lake article. I will walk away from it. I hope you will consider that we both share the same goals about the project. Maybe we have some competing philosophies on some issues, however we both want to improve this project. I am not trying to be condescending or to troll you. I stayed off Wikipedia a couple days to get perspective on these things. I will likely take another break rather than be to involved in these dramas. All my best Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's why you took a break? Nothing to do with your having been warned ~10' earlier to retract your personal attacks upon other editors? In any case, anything further to do with this lake, your opinions or the ARS generally should be made on the relevant project- or article-talk pages. Here, they'll be rolled back I'm afraid. ——SN54129 02:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

California New York Express Movers

Greetings! I saw you changed the CSD tag by User:Celestina007 to PROD. Thank you for that because I too believe CSD is inapplicable here. Can you please suggest any improvements so I can expand this article? Thank you again, --Zettiezac (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverted my contribution

Hello, I added a tag for deletion review to the deletion discussion of Toks Asher Young, can you kindly explain your reasons for that and is it in accordance with Wikipedia policy.Techwritar (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Techwritar: and I have reverted you again. The discussion is over. Do you not see it even says Please do not modify it....No further edits should be made to this page. As I said, you should either discuss it with the closing administator, or file your objection at WP:Deletion review. Please do not edit the old AfD page again. ——SN54129 18:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

reply|Techwritar}} And I advise you that you have not followed my advice; viz go to WP:DRV and follow the instructions there. Which I have now fone for you. Your future activities should be on that page, not this one or the AfD. ——SN54129 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. Thanks for logging the SPI for Chandra Shekher Mishra yesterday. Much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem Lugnuts. Username huh, what a imagination that guy had. ——SN54129 10:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edits to List of My Hero Academia characters

Quote from admin Drmies: "plot doesn't necessarily need secondary sourcing"

Also, My Hero Academia isn't a fanfiction, and thus doesn’t fit into WP:FANCRUFT. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)