User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T̸̵͎̜̪ͦ͌͋ͧͦ̐͐͐̉̿͋̆ͩ̀̚͢ó̸̵̪̥͍͍̝͔̼̯̦̟̘ͫ̏̋ ̸̵̢̮̖̹̤͚̟͇̻͇͇͖̥̼̓ͩ͋ͤͭͬ̎͊͛ͦ̅͝ḭ̧͙͙͈̪̹̗̭̦͇ͮ̈́̂̽̄̈́ͩ͐ͧ̔͌n̆͌ͧͩ̂̀̈́̅ͯ͌͌̈́ͪ̊͑̚̚͏͈͕̼͉̕ͅv̞̩̩̯̦͚̞̟͙̻͔͍̺̘̳̭͇̈́ͦ͑̿̏̑ͬ͂̀̀͘͢͡o̧̦̗̦̜͍̦̟̲̲̍̃̈́ͤ͒̅͐̓̓ͤ̿̌̄͂̍͜͡ͅk̨͖̪̤͕͓̫͙̙̗̇ͯ̄̈́̂̅ͬ̄͂ͦͬ̅̿́͟͞e̛ͯ̎̅̽̔̄ͩ͆̽̚҉̸͖̲̠̮̤̫̗͚͔́ ̨̹̺͉̞̪͓̪̹̻̎̋͋̐̽̉͌̐͟ͅt̨̩̳̤͕͊̉͌̆̅ͧͤ̌͞ͅḧ́ͩ̋̃ͬ͗͂͆̅͂͋͊̍̃ͪ҉҉̬͕͕̗̘ȩ̡̥̦̰̻̃ͧ͊ͥ͑̌͐̂̎ͦͥ̄̋̿̓̚̕ ̴̮̭̺̩̜̼̺̤͉̬͍̮̺͚̗͕̩̗̥ͦ̽͗̍ͪ̒͌̅̏ͩ̂̐̏ͬͯ͘͞ȟ̠̭͇̞̹̯̺̤̲̗̲̑͊̀͌̔͐͊̚̕͞íͨ̔ͯ̽̏ͪͧ͛̋͢͢҉͇̥͕̯̲̘̩̰͔̯̘̱͚͍̫̟̫v̡̨̛̲͖̓͐̆́͢ͅe̾̿ͬͥͨͥ̂́̽̌̄̑ͯͦ͂̊̔͏͕̘̖̮̪̠-̧̍̉̄̆̂̌ͨ̏ͬ͋̇̀̚͝͏̸̯̥̱̥͔̠̬͙m̨̧̰̫̳̞̩̗͇̈́̉̒ͨͬͮͬ̿̂̂̇͐͜i̴̡̮̩͍̹̼̳͍͙͉̘͇͕̯̞͊ͥͮ̓̍̊͗͆͐̎͒̆̽͟͠n̛̘̮̖̻͖͍̺̣̩̩̞̈̏̎̒̇͂̅ͣ̈̽̚͜͠ͅd͙̼̺̠̬͕ͫͧ̄͂ͮ̒͂̓ͭ̀̀ ̢̢̟̗̣̯̳̤͉̌ͪͬͨ͛͊̍ͨͬ͗̈́̂͋̊ͯ̒̕͘͢ͅr̸̢̮̠̞̲͉̗͍̥̯̜̭͈̰̹̯̂̓̋͒̐ͪͨ̆̇͂̓͒̂͐̚͠ȩ̛͎̜̫̦͍̠̭͍͔̠̫͎̗̯͍͓̮͐̽̊ͣ̓̐ͨ͌͊ͪ̂͑ͥͨ̆͆ͣͨ̀̚̕͠p̹̦̺̉ͬͪͪ̔̔̐ͬ͜͡ͅr̸̖̠͇̳͈̜͙͍̠̟̠̩̝̼̮͇̪ͯ̂̅ͥͪ̂ͪ͊ͧͧ͛̿ͦ̂ͯͩ͂̀͡͡ͅe̯̬̦̦̜̜̟͇̙̜̙̹͈̣̖̰͚̍̽ͥ̿͐́ͬ͋̔̾͋ͮ̽̑ͩ̽ͦ̋ͫ͢s̶̓͗ͤͯ͆̉͛͌̅̚̚͏͓͉̦͎̰͈̜̦̙͡eͨͥ̓̾͗͒ͣ̐̓̆ͣ̍ͭ́͟͝͏͍̦̮̻͚̩ň̶̢̬͉̲͓̯͈̪̰͔̙̤̪̇̆ͥ͋͋͂ͩͣ̐͗̏͊̚͢͞͠t̨͕̭̩̤̒͐ͥ̊ͫ̐́i̢͉̙̜̬̳̜̤͚̦̭̞̫͒ͫ̍ͯ͌̔̌̄͋́̇͜͞n̴̡̡͓̳͕̭̘̮̞̦̗ͯ̉͋͒̀̃̎̽͋͆͛͢͡g̷̳͍̣̱͔̥͇̳̫̰͍̘͙͙ͩ͛̑̀̐̑ͤͦͫ̏ͮ͢ͅ ̴̧͍̟̼̬͚̹ͦ̄̏̊͛̍͆ͥ͑͊̎͗͋͒̃̈̏͂̕͢ć̢̳̮̪̮̺̺̣̪̮͕̦͚̺͒̆̔ͫ̀̊͌ͤ̀́̄̌͘̕͢͞ḩ̙̯̩̟̺̮̖͎͖̈̄̓͂ͪ̉̔̓͒ͯ͗̇̇͂͛̀̚͜͝a̸̶̠̱̙͓̙̱̱̟͕̹̣̠̝͇͖̻̣͉ͪ̓̂̈́͌͑͘͟͜ơ̴͎͈̲͉͖̮̘̺͍̼̞͉̫̲̺͉ͪ̇ͥ̓͜ͅş̴̙͇̙̗̩͖̣͎̭͔̘͎̠̪̣̣͕͈̍͊̈́͗͒͌ͧ̑ͫ̾ͤ̃̈́̚.̅̔̈́ͩ̀͐̈́́ͥ̒ͦ̃͊̽̓̈ͤ̎̀̚͘͢͏̹̺̩̤̪̝͍͚̳͈͓̪̥̫̠͞ͅ Ĩ̛͍̗̦̼͚̪̟̬̗̻͖̤̠̻͒͒̈͢͠n̸̷͂ͪ̇̽̔̀̔́͏̻̲̯̥ͅv̸ͩͪͧͭͬͣ̍҉̹̼̭̖̼̺͉̭͉͔̰o̬̺̘̪̲͇̯̲̹̟̪ͯ̾ͩ̃ͧ̅͐̅͐ͤ͌̑͗ͧ̽̀͡k̵̹̖̜̬̳̬̳͖̱̼͍͍̙̦̞̥̈ͧ͂͋̒̽̅͋ͪͭͣ́ͤ́̃̐̊͐͘͜͜įͣ́ͫ͗̓͆ͦ̉͗͋ͫ͋̚͡͠͏̬͕̮͚͔̝̪̗̻̞͓n̷̋̌ͣ͋̾̊͗͏͢͏͙̻͚̩͉̫͘g͚̤͇̹̥̭̦̪͈̦̼̜̦̫ͭ̔̈́̊ͨ̄̕͝͝ ̸̴̲̫̱͓̟̜͇̙̩̼̝͇̲̬̻̗͎̯͙̏́ͦͣ̂͆ͨ͂ͯͧ͟͝͠t̵̵͉̞̗ͮ̾͛̀͛ͧ̾̂͂ͪ̂̈̑͂ͬ̎͛́͜͡ͅh̷͚̥̠̼̝ͮ̐͒͌ͧͯͫ̾͊̆̊ͦ̿̔͘͟͜͠e͓̭̞̼̞̙̺͖̘͗͋̂ͩ͊ͪ̌͑̐͊̀̄ͭ̈̊͐ͧ́̚̕͟͜ ̐ͫ̄͛̽͊ͬ̀ͥ̋ͫ̏ͪ͏̷͟͏̙͚̭̝̟̘̝̯͚̣͍̦f̽͋͌̆̋̊̀͢͏̵̛̗̮͎̰͇͖̻͕̠̥͎e̻̻̠̤̱͇̞͕͔̥͎̹̲͕̦̭̜̅̾͛ͬ̿͘͠͞ẻ̶̷̘̩̻̪̣̬̥̥̠̖̝̯̖͍̠̗̟̾̇ͫͫ̋̾̅̓͡ͅl̸̷̵̢͉̱̫̥͍̔ͧ̄ͦ̆̃͒ͨ̆͝i̶͒͂̏̉̿ͯ҉͏͏͉̳͔̠̭͓̩̜̼̯̗͇̖̮̪ǹ̸̥͍͙͖͚̣͉̘̻͉͎̯̩̦͍̖̫̙̊̈͊̈́ͧ̑̔̒̍̒ͣͮͭ͌͊́̚͟͢͞ġ̡̹̩̱͎̭̭͒͂ͪ̓ͥͩ͡ ̷̝̱̝̟͍͎̯̫͚͇̱̣̗͙ͧ̐̌̇͗ͧ̿̒́̌̍̚͞͝ͅo̧̢̡͕͎͓̥̩͉ͮͫ͐͋̒̓͂ͬͪ͊ͣ̈͂ͫ͗̀̚͝ͅf̥̙͉̥̣͇͍̯͈̂ͤ̈́̂̑ͯ̏ͣͥ͐͘͟ ͪ͛̒ͭ̓͐̍͘͏̱̞͕̹͓̩͕͓̭͕̺͈͢͝cͨ͋ͫͮͦ͊̈̚͏̨̥͕̮̲̝͉̗͔͈̹̣̦͔̹h̡ͫ̋͐̈ͨ͂ͮ̔ͫ͌̿̈͆̈́̋ͦ͠҉̵̸̳͙̲̘͔̫a̛̹̘̰̞̘̱̰̪̬͈̱̗͒ͩ̀̐ͧ͛̑ͤ̐̋̃ͬ̍̂̊̇ͫ́̚͘oͬ̐̃̿̌̐́̌̽͒̅̕͝҉̷̲̜̺̥ș̷̛̤̙̦͎͔͈̝ͯ̓ͯ̐͒̃ͭ̂͛̋ͭ̔̌̈.̢̳̟̼̫̖̦͎͖̜̙̰̖͆̽ͧͣ̋́͘ͅ ҉̗̠͎̞̰̙̬̹̼̫W̴̨̛̏ͦͩ̋̅̏̎̽ͯ̍́́͢҉͈̮̯̖̖̩į̸̨͕̗̖̭͎͖ͦ́ͮ̄ͯ͛̒̈͑̃̒̉̃͂t̓ͣͤ̆͊̋̊̊͌ͬ̏̌ͭͫͥͫ͏̛͎̺̠̜̫̼͟͠h̐̂ͪ̀͐̐̒̉̋ͨ̔͏̵͇͖̮̫̜͙̲̼̖͎̩̩̖̟̬̖̕͞ ̵̨̮̪̳͍̗̄͐ͭ̍̊͆́͢͝o̻̠̣͈̯̺͈̞̽͂͂̉̈́̃̒̃̋̂ͤͧͯ͒ͯ̾̽̔ͥ̕u͈̭̼̰̝̜͉̖̘̲̟̼͇͕͙͈̘̯̟̎ͯ̑ͦ̃ͯ̎̃̅̽̒ͭ̈ͥ̇̀̄̾̍̀͡͝t̸̡̫̮͕͇͍̠̮̗̫̝͉̓̈́ͧ̔ͦ̈́ ̞̤͙͎̮̙̰̗͔̹͔̪̠̀̓̿̂̈ͯ́ͦ̽͟͜ó͕͉̼͇ͮ̂ͫͤ̔ͬͣ͘͜͠ȓ̡̩͖̱̭͓̺̿̃͋̎ͅd̵̠̩͚̯̜̜̰̰͙̮͓̮͔̖͎̳͕̤̻̏̀̐ͮ̎ͤͪ͒ͦͫ͋ͤ̇ͯ́e̸̷̛̬͚̗̣̹̥͈̰̙̫̠̤̣̥̭̝͉̬̿̈̇͋͆̇̿̊͐̐ͫͩͩͣ͟ȑ̡̹̗͉̻̤̦͚͓̭͉̮̣͔͎ͮ̾̊͘̕ͅ.͛̅̍ͮ͂ͭ̿͏͝͏̣̲͇͉̦͉̻̗̺̰̯̦͔̫̼̱̭̪ Ṱ̫̼̝̳̜̹̟̩̞͇̯̘͐̈́̔̃̅ͫ̈́ͩ̀̐̔͆̆̒͒͌͘ͅh̴͇͖̣̳̙̘̝͍̗ͭͥ̓͘ḝ̻͙͚̘̳̖͙̺̜͙̰͚̮͓ͦ̋̅̉ͯ͒̾̋́̚͟ͅͅ ̶̢͕̼͇̩͖̤ͬͤ̃ͯͮ̃͛͠͝N̘͍͕͙̫̦̺̠͚̩̞̪̱͊͌ͮ̒ͬ̔̄͋́̑̓̉̽͌ͯ̽͢͞ͅe̵̷̘̜̬̦̞̘͖ͫ̿̇ͬͅz̸̸̷̳̯̝̦̹̳̭̘̹̿̔̋̉ͯ̈̐̾̔͂͊̈́͋ͬ̒̐ͧ̉̚͞p̴̐ͩ̂́̊̆̐̊͑̀͘͠͏̨̩̰͖̪̹͙̙͕̰̹̦ȩ̴̹̬̳̳͖̥͔̖̘̙̩̜̳͚͉̩̥͌̊ͭ̌ͦ͢ŗ̸̨̘̩͕͙͙̬ͤͧ͗ͩ̃́ͨ̿̑̍͊ͥ̿d̷̙̙̼͍̮́̓ͩ̈́̏̽̉ͯ̐̓ͦ̃͂̚̕̕i̶̧̯̯̟̬̳̤̜̝͚̣͓̪̺̞̹̅͂ͪ͌ͤ̌ͩ͘͘͞a̛͕̳͎̳͐̒ͣ̅ͫ̾̇̍ͩ̆̓ͪ̑ͧ͝͞nͯͨ̈́ͫ̾̓ͪ͂͊̇ͬ͐̎̈̍̍͊͢҉̺͙̹ ̠̝̟͎̙͓͇̳̹̗̞̗ͧ̇ͦ̿̈͗̏̽̇͛ͫͨ́̍͌͗̿ͤ̚͠͠͝ͅh̶̢̗̣̙̦̲̻̲͍̼͚̫̱̙̭̬̗͚̦̎̑̃̓̂͆͋̐ͤ̍ͦ̑͝i̸̶̵̊̄̐̓̿̓̀̌̓͌ͫ͊̇̀҉̝̻͙͍̱̜͚͚̠̼ͅv̸̢͕̫̜̬̻̥̼̝̦͚̦͉͕̩̮̔̌ͯ̀͆̇ͧ̊ͬ͢͢͝e̔̔̂ͭͯ̏ͯͣͩ̋̓̓͋̇ͭ̂̏̀̚͏̕͟҉̸̖̺͎͈̟̪͈̝̹̘̰̦̦-̸̡̟̟̤̲͎͍͓͖̞̫̰̱̹͉̅̽̎̓ͫ́ͅṃ̷͉̼͖̦̝͊̌ͯ̄ͯͭͫ̄͗͗̿̉̒͋̇̊ͬ̀̚ī̒ͭͪ͑͊͊͛̿̾̂̽͡҉̹̯͎̤͕͉̟̜̪̫͘͢͡n̮͕̠̪̠̮̲͕̋̄̿ͯͦ͂̈ͨͩ̌ͤ͛ͯ̋͑̒̈́́́͘͢͡d̵̬̗̰̗͓̗̹̗̜̯̪̜̗͔̲̱͉̘̊͋̒͐̃ͨ͌̆ͯ͗͟͠ ͪ̓̓͒̊̑̐ͬ́͏̪̼͇̦̳̬͉̰́ō̡̱͇̺̗̟̩̱̣̲̤̞̱̒̊ͯ̉̂ͦͤͬ̂͆̓͊ͩ͜͜͠ͅf̶̵̧̤͕̩͕̗̮̱̻̯͇̻̤̬̱̾ͭ͆́͐̊ͭ̾ͥ͑̌͗ͭ̌̇̔͗ ́̂̅̀͒̎̌͡҉̷̷҉̤̭̺̝̱̤̗̙̩̼̳̻̯̭̞͇ͅc̤͈̞̣̹͍͓̦̺͙̳̿́ͭ͊̏ͩ̅̽̑̆͋̂ͯ̏͢h̶̡̹̩̪̜̥͕̼̥ͧ̎ͣ͐̓ͨ͒̂̀ą̴̛̺̲̘̻̦̪͙͍͕̙̫̗̝̠̆͑ͨͧ̓͑̏̔̌̇ͧ̈͛͌̽ͩ͌͡ͅo̶̴̡͎͖͕̜̯̖̥̩̭ͣͧͥ͐ͫ͂̑ͥ̄̚͢͡ͅṣ̗̹͍͎̲̰͇͚ͤ͋̎͂ͤ̈́ͣ̿ͪͭ̏̈͆͘͡.̖͓̻̰̻͕̗̹̬̰͚̗͚͎̩͉̤̮̃ͯ͂ͮͯ̊͑̌͂̽ͦ̾̀̋͌̔͢͢ͅ ̰̘̼͉̥͍̼̙͊̈̔̅͑̓ͩ̉̾ͨ͢͜Ž̴̯̫̯̫̪̠̼͚͈̫͉͍ͮ̎͂̌̽͟ͅā̧̢̙̗̭̰͎̰ͫͦ̂̐͢͡͡l̸̵̢̲͈͖̬͇̫̻ͥͤ̄̀͐́g̸̢̨̠͇̙̘̠̼̟͕̱̃̆̀͊̾͂ͭ͆̽̀͞ö́ͮ̃ͥͣ̋͂ͣ̌̊̎̓͛̓ͮ͘͜͜͏̘̞̞̺͓̗̜̪͈̱̦̗̹̝ͅͅͅ.̸̛̹̯͖̲̩̻̤̣̖ͧ̐͋͗̇̚ͅ H̶̢̼̰̖̜̘͉͔̜̠̘͕̹̜̦̟̥͚̭̆ͭ̈́ͮͧ͌̍ͦ̒ͦͬ̔̅ͨͤ̓̚ͅȇ̵̴͉̗̰̫̣̫̲̺̮̓̎ͤ̂̐ͦͬ́ͮͧͩ̌̏̊͐ͤ͛́͠ͅͅ ̌ͥ̇̄ͦ̾ͯ́͏̠̼̥͓͚̤͈̘̰̣͢͡w̸͚̤͉̼͇̬̜̻̫͉͔̪͚̯͓̮͖̾̂̽̏̈́̀͑ͦͪ͌̎̀́̚͢͠ḣ̟̭̫̝ͥ̊͌̈́̄͂̈͗̓̌͋̚̚͘͡o̸̴̝͕̥͔͕̞ͯ̇̀̑ͧ̾͂̾ͧ̿̌ͩ̇ͯ̆ͭ̾̊̕͟͢ ̷̴̴̨͈̥̣͔͇̉̈́͒͑͋̍̈̿W̷̡ͥ͋̌͂͂͡͏̙͕̥͚̗̖̗͇̭͉̹̯͓̠̻̥͕a̴̺̭͙̜͉͈̘͕̙̬͎̥̤̺̮͓̱͂̅̿̾̅ͮͩͤͬ̆͛͟ͅi̐ͩ́͗̇̈́͒̿͊ͯ͒̏̐ͦͮ̒҉͏̦̩̼̺̕t̴̔ͥ͊ͮ̉̐̽ͥ͞͏̀͏͓̯̻̦͍͎͙͓ś̱̦̻͉̰̺̦̄ͪ͆̇̓͆͊̾̂̍̈́̊́͜ ̸͎͚̖͚̭͕̯̞͇͉ͦ̔̋̍͑̂͋ͭͣ̉̓͐ͤ́̚ͅB̡̲̪̰͔̤̲̰̹͉̖̠͈͖̦̻͉͕̬͛̈́̆͛̇̌ͯ̐̐eͪ̽̏ͮ̒ͬͣ͑̆̾҉̷̴̢̮̣̯̼͢ĥ̸̷̨̦̠̲̝̦̻̗̟̱͎͈̀̌͆͒̈̃ͮ͒ͫ̎̄͊̎̈́͠ĭ̧̱̱̝͓̪̳̭͇̥̖͉͛̈ͣ̕ņ̸̪͇̗̬̭̲̦̝̝̼̲̺̾ͯ̌̊ͧ͛́͟͝dͯ̿̉̀̈̇͘͏̧͍̯̙̞̪̟͓͙͔̟̰͍͙͎͎͚̞͈̜ ̲͍͉̫̜̪̜͉͍̲̘̠̝̤̳̙̮͔͕ͦ͋ͮ̉̅ͥ̌ͫ̉̆̒̈̇ͫ̓͂̔́͜͜͡T̢͛͛͆ͪ̈́͗̄ͮͫ̽͂ͪ̏̿̚҉͏̡̮̩̲̙̰̦͉̜̞̻̼̩̩̗̪͞h̵̡̧͂ͧ̀͑̀̿̀ͥͣ̋ͦ̇́̈҉͚͕̞͕̯͙̯ĕ̫͉͕͈͔͔̘͈̰͍̘̹̬̭͙͓ͭ̃ͮ̃ͩ͐ͮ͊̎̊̀ͯ͊ͯ͜͢͠ͅ ̷̗͉̹͕̰̬̞͇̘̰̻̩̱̘̥͖̺̳̖ͫ̐́̌̈͛́́͟W̵̧͖̠̤̟̥̥̭̰̟͉̠͚̱̯̩̼̙̳͆͋̂ͨ͂̅̿̂̀ą̵̵͍̟̦̣̟̺̱͐̎ͩ̋̚͟͞ͅl̨̳̰̞̼̺̥͔̹̘͇̩̼̭̣̮̆̋̍̄ͨͬ̊̈͟l̴̲̯̼̹͓̪͕̲̹̠͚ͮ̃͒ͫ͠͡ͅ.̴̢͙̤̝̠ͮ͂̐̊̊ͣ͊̾͑̌ͧ̔ͣͤ Z̢̳̻̬̣̞͉̺̜͚͓̒͌͆̿́͗͟͢Ä̴̲͔͚̫͚͉͒ͫ̂ͦͨ̆́̀͢L̷͎͚̝̪͋̈̅͐̾̇̎͛̈ͬ̇̌͌ͩ̋̔̉͠Ģ̴̶̘͚̲͇̣̱̗͕̤̑͌͛̂̈̄͑ͩ̓ͤ͒ͤ͞ͅͅÖ̸̡̩̝̬̟̺̣̯̦̬̩́͑ͧͦ̂͒͂͐ͧͧͤͬ̃̔͋̅͊́͟!̭̫̱̘͕ͭͨ̈́͗ͯ̏ͮͦͣ̃ͩ̂͘

Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winged Blades^Godric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evergreen School AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length of talk page

Your talk page is, at the time of writing, 327,460 bytes long. Please archive most of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? There are user talk pages like the honourable EEng at User talk:EEng, and SN54129 is being demanded to archive their talk page? In any case, nobody should be going around demanding people to archive their talk page. Have common sense and decency, please. As a petition, I will not archive my talk page until it is 400,000 bytes; folks needs to get better computer. Alex Shih (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I didn't realize that asking for someone to "please archive" their page was a demand. Would it be better if Andy had said "please consider archiving"? Also, I like how you take the victim-blaming approach of demanding that everyone just suck it up and get better hardware. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, what has the length of this talk page got to do with you? If you don't answer, we shall just assume you're here trolling. Cassianto^Talk 15:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Primefac, certainly. Under any circumstance I would read "Please archive most of it" as a demand. And if I am invoking the name of EEng and making a ridiculous claim in the same sentence, one would assume that humour was involved in the comment. Now may I ask you, why are you badgering me? Alex Shih (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And this is why it's dangerous to use humour without obvious cues. You used humour, I used humour, and now you're upset. I'll take my badger back, though; she's lonely now. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And in typical fashion, within minutes of a semi-reasonable post being made on SN's talk page, it's exploded into nonsense. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

First NOTHERE, now this. Sounds like my kind of life. Alex Shih (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm proud to be the user whose name, when invoked, is automatically assumed to be a flag that something ridiculous is being said. EEng 16:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• And I've been rumbled; Confession!—clearly only WP:HERE to slow peoples' computers down to a 1986 sluggedness  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

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 looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Biased much?

I saw your boilerplate warning on my page. Why haven't you warned the editor who is repeatedly adding material that breaks BLP? That might be an idea, no? --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

All I say is, "Mr and Mrs Smith occasionally like to get away to their place in the country" is hardly a hill worth the dying on. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will die here. But I will certainly keep removing that material if it is added, and I claim the BLP exemption for doing so. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeeeas...not sure about that. Why not get a third opinion, or take it to the BLP Noticeboard for more opinions? The two of you should at least discuss your differences (as to why it is/isn't a BLPVIO) on the talk page first. Conversing via the medium of edit-summaries rather lacks— ambience.

Pinging the editors concerned: @KJP1 and MarchOrDie: —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You've not exactly done your homework here, have you? I raised it at BLPN quite a while ago, and the third opinion favours my (rather obvious) view that making allegations about living people based solely on reports in the Daily Express is not a good thing. Try again. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'll just let you carry on edit-warring and see what happens: What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption...When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard Incidentally, if you didn't throw "boilerplate warnings" around yourself, you'd be far less likely to receive them :D You are, per WP:BLPREMOVE, under no obligation to remove everything that is poorly sourced—just contentious material. And, as I said at the beginning, to characters spending time in holdiday home is clearly not contentious: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that...is unsourced or poorly sourced. As you say: Nice try. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Jolly good. I've wasted enough time on your blatherings already, and I'll let you get back to .... whatever it is that you do here. Have a nice day. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Another "nice try" from you, since you couldn't patronise me if you tried. As to what we do around here, let's see. Articles created by me: 113; articles created by you: Err.... The bottom line is, that with your ~50 edits in four years, you lack both the experience and understanding to even understand what you are discussing. Let alone actually discuss it as you are required to. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And talking of competence, this seems to be the level of yours :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You still talking to me? I haven't got a good impression of you either; careless, lazy, flippant and passive-aggressive when challenged. More importantly, on the issue you originally tried to warn me about, I am right. The fact that you were too lazy to check other steps that had been followed must have made you feel very silly, and no doubt that explains your subsequent poor behaviour. Try harder, try better. At the end of the day, we can't write shit about the Royal Family (or any living people) based only on tabloid rags, and you know that is true. Now, any further conversation at article talk or the BLPN discussion please as I have nothing more to say to you. Toodle pip. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanking goodness, your impressions are worth as much as your content creation or understanding of policy. "Off you fuck" is probably the direction you're looking for. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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…
329		2005 Kashmir earthquake (talk)	Add sources
70		Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (talk)	Add sources
49		Exposed (Vince Neil album) (talk)	Add sources
147		Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (talk)	Add sources
53		Tirah (talk)	Add sources
299		Blue Division (talk)	Add sources
46		Amarnath land transfer controversy (talk)	Cleanup
14		Masarat Alam Bhat (talk)	Cleanup
8		Socialist Democratic Federation (Japan) (talk)	Cleanup
9		Courtesy tenure (talk)	Expand
96		Zone to Defend (talk)	Expand
12		Gilbert Talbot (soldier) (talk)	Expand
70		Far-left politics in the United Kingdom (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,048		Mario Puzo (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
495		Paregoric (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
488		Protests against Donald Trump (talk)	Merge
3,098		Sodomy (talk)	Merge
133		Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (talk)	Merge
6		The Two of Us (play) (talk)	Wikify
25		Alice Diamond (talk)	Wikify
9		John Bernard Philip Humbert, 9th Count de Salis-Soglio (talk)	Wikify
2		Spirit of Revolt Archive (talk)	Orphan
2		Rochester Oral History Archive (talk)	Orphan
34		Murder of Denise McGregor (talk)	Orphan
33		Centralised Training Institutes of the Indian Railways (talk)	Stub
387		XEXX-AM (talk)	Stub
9		Vehicle registration plates of Qatar (talk)	Stub
166		Sandra Corleone (talk)	Stub
27		Lincoln Plaza (London) (talk)	Stub
305		Joey Zasa (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) 23:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Boccioni bit.jpg

The file File:Boccioni bit.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned, no conceivable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. B (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for saving my Sandbox. I moved the random stuff to my DeviantArt Sta.sh!

The dog

Am I going crazy or did the dog just moved slightly more leftwards? Alex Shih (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, someone might have changed it, but using the desktop version on my phone I can hardly see it—just a slither of right ear... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The someone seems to be the owner of the t/p :-)∯WBG^converse 16:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ikr, but it seems to have got worse (=further to the left) since then. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

no activity here

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

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

File:Garage man in Chicago.png listed for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking offence with AN comment

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

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder QEDK. And since you have shown rather more of an interest in the topic than my single byte's-worth of a contribution, I've returned the favour. Happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, calm down. Why do you have to perceive it to be so hostile? I don't understand. WP:AGF, WP:NICE, that's where the basics lie. We don't even have old dirt, does it cost to be nice to other people? --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No hostility at all, QUDK, I believe we've always got on OK? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, but the ping above failed, QEDK—it's always rude to spell a username wrong, however esoteric—nyt just FYI, I'll probably be archiving this thread soon. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No pressure, hope we get along well from now on. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 16:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stratford Dialectical and Radical Club

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stratford Dialectical and Radical Club you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stratford Dialectical and Radical Club

Hello! Your submission of Stratford Dialectical and Radical Club at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Unanswered Peer Review Requests

Hello Serial Number 54129, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to Unsubscribe).

History

Article Date Added Joseph "Diamond Jo" Reynolds (Request) 2018-09-07 Albert Pierrepoint (Request) 2018-09-03 Bratislava Working Group (Request) 2018-08-31 John Adams (Request) 2018-08-21 William Pūnohu White (Request) 2018-08-18 Ira T. Wyche (Request) 2018-08-12 Francisco Cano (Request) 2018-08-01 Anti-Russian sentiment (Request) 2018-07-27 Montana-class battleship (Request) 2018-07-20 History of Catalonia (Request) 2018-07-12 National Jewish Health (Request) 2018-07-10 Louis Agassiz (Request) 2018-07-03 John (Request) 2018-06-26 WAVES (Request) 2018-05-27 New Albion (Request) 2018-03-07

You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is up for peer review, is it? Nice and easdy anyway :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018

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: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken rollback?

Just checking, was this a misclick? PackMecEng (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It would seem to be. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Well good fucking job! PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, @PackMecEng and Primefac:, I thought I'd caught myself before anyone noticed  :) but, *sigh* I kind of regret the "amusing" edit-summary now—what seems clever late at night sometimes seems less so in the cold light of morning. Ah well. Hope all is well! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any comments

about the notability of Matteo's Dream? I managed to come across a few pieces in local Californian dailies but unsure as to the scopes of an AfD......∯WBG^converse 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Referencing style

Ah, apologies for that. I should have checked it!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: no apology required whatsoever: it was as much an excuse to try the brand-new "ping from edit summary", which I think is really quite cool. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

he he well it worked, anyway. I got a shiny message in my notifications box! Hope you're enjoying your holiday.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

Does there exist any visually-pleasing way of referencing different pages of the same book/journal? I mean, something that is more aesthetic than the current scene over here.....Some help will be appreciated:-)∯WBG^converse 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) {{sfn}} is your friend Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, Thanks:-) Any script that might do it for me? ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: sorry I missed this, my signal has been slightly iffy and I got no notification. Did you get this sorted? FWIW I concur with @Galobtter:—sfn is clean and simple. With everything beastly separated, etc. See any of my recent articles for example. I don't know of a script though; let me know if you find one! 🍻 —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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…
564		Spanish language in the United States (talk)	Add sources
247		Little John (talk)	Add sources
54		Sheriff of Nottingham (position) (talk)	Add sources
11		Gilbert Whitehand (talk)	Add sources
55		Robin Hood in popular culture (talk)	Add sources
232		Friar Tuck (talk)	Add sources
100		Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (talk)	Cleanup
62		Éric Lapointe (singer) (talk)	Cleanup
74		Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith (talk)	Cleanup
429		Idlib Governorate (talk)	Expand
568		Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (talk)	Expand
15		Dimitar Talev (talk)	Expand
64		Ross Park Mall (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
300		Bible prophecy (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8		Camp Hanuman Temple (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
24		Rai University (talk)	Merge
460		Lord Haw-Haw (talk)	Merge
2,437		RuneScape (talk)	Merge
1,858		Rent (musical) (talk)	Wikify
291		Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (talk)	Wikify
37		Maxwell Knight (talk)	Wikify
72		Ola Al-Fares (talk)	Orphan
5		Liulin type instruments (talk)	Orphan
372		Bad Dragon (talk)	Orphan
14		Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valor, and Marriage (talk)	Stub
9		NaTemat.pl (talk)	Stub
17		Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow (talk)	Stub
7		Badsworth (talk)	Stub
27		Lime Ridge Mall (talk)	Stub
57		Tita (singer) (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) 23:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Greenock stowaways

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

Your GA nomination of The Greenock stowaways

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Greenock stowaways you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figfires -- Figfires (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Foolery

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

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

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

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

For you.

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

Explain this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some light for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

No need to apologise

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

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

A beer for you!

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

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018

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 looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/May'n.
Message added 11:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Would you mind not leaving these templates here every time you reply there? I am, after all, clearly watching that page. I assure you that they will not encourage a faster response :) ——SerialNumber54129 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/May'n.
Message added 23:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox on Stanley Kubrick Biographical Page

I had created an infobox on director Stanley Kubrick's page. When I made it I had no idea about the previous (and multiple) discussions regarding the matter. It seemed like there was a ban on infoboxes until September 10th, 2018.

I would like to propose that it is kept (and update it with any other pertinent information editor's & contributors would like to add). I have read the discussions and have really only seen an argument against one as an Editor's personal preference due to their distaste for "Idiotboxes" - mainly retired user @Cassianto.

I have been using Wikipedia for 10+ years and have been an avid reader. I have learned countless things about passionate subjects and have used this is a resource for papers in school. However I also love to browse it and read up on historical people and their achievements in my spare time. I do not contribute much to it as I am not an expert on anything really (maybe some cars) but I have to say I was so taken aback by the lack of one on Mr. Kubrick's page that I took the time to create one with data consistent of other pages. I understand that the lead on that page is extremely well written and has a multitude of good information, but I don't that is a good substitute for an infobox. I truly believe that the infobox is the first place many (not all) readers look and that it is an astounding visual resource for fast facts. From there readers will read the article. Furthermore infoboxes are something that I & many associate with Wikipedia pages and I believe that they should be consistent in that matter, especially on biographical pages of people with extreme historical significance.

The last thing I would like to do is start a hotheaded debate on whether or not an infobox should be added to the Stanley Kubrick biographical page. However I am part of the audience that uses this website for it's intended purpose - and there have been others just like me who feel the need for an infobox on this page. I have spoken to many of my peers (also fellow Wikipedia users) and they have all found it strange that one was not on Stanley Kubrick's page. I know that editors and contributors do see them differently, but I think that a good amount of readers associate them with people who are significant IE if someone doesn't have one then they aren't important.

I don't want this debate to get out of hand, but I think it's time that infoboxes be discussed again and that a compromise can be made. This subject has been coming up way too much with this page in particular.

I would absolutely love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Thank you very much!

Willydrach (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

TRM ANI dispute

Hi SN54129 - I'm approaching you on his because you were the only one to make a measured and useful comment on this. I came back to my complaint on ANI to find that it had been discussed, dismissed, and closed within 2 hours without anyone even asking for a further comment or clarification from me. I'm fully aware that this dispute has to be solved by discussion; I've said so over and over again. But it takes two to make a discussion - that's exactly why I went to ANI. (And I haven't broken any links, despite what User:Only in death says.) This isn't a content issue, it's a policy issue of which the specific page is just an example, and the issue needs to be discussed in some wider forum than just the article's talk page. Thanks for the Third Opinion suggestion - that would make sense if this were just a content issue, but it doesn't seem appropriate to this case - perhaps I'm wrong though, maybe it would be the best route?. Can you advise me? I'd be happy to explain the underlying policy issue in more detail. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Du English

I disagree with closure as no consensus. Including the nominator, it's 3 votes (arguments) for deletion, and only one for keeping. Is 75% majority not enough? Sure, arguments matter more than votes, but I think arguments were made on both sides, and again, 3:1... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Weeeellll: you know. There was no consensus emerging for one call or the other, particularly for deletion, which is the nub. There were, too, "weak" !votes for both deletion and support. But it's certainly in line for one of the crappest articles in quality ever kept at a modern AfD—if only there was such a contest!—I'll agree with you on that. It's just a shame that, as a surmountable issue, that's an argument to avoid in such circumstances. Thanks for the message, though—all the best! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I concur with the closure, for one. The best way-out in these cases is to take the help of long-standing editors who are proficient in the language (and the area) whialt the AfD is running, rather than speculate randomly. If I am not horribly wrong, Alex Shih might be a far credible person to chime in with a byte or two about the reality, as to the quality of the sourcing. ∯WBG^converse 12:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• I noticed this one as well. My biggest problem is not the sourcing (as it's in Chinese I can't assess whether they're reliable or not) but the fact that much of the article is incomprehensible (is it a biography - or two? Is it a YouTube Channel? Is it an English teaching business?) It's difficult to tell ... Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Usually I'd prefer incomprehensible garbage to be deleted, but this is a very popular Taiwanese Youtuber (comprises a brother and a sister) with significant social media presence, frequently quoted in the Taiwanese papers (outside of ordinary press release and interviews) for their English learning content. Piotrus, I am not sure where you get 3:1, but Timmyshin did not vote for delete? Rather they are pretty much saying the same thing: the subject appears to be notable, but the article needs to be blown up and completely rewritten. Procedural wise, if this goes to DRV, I think it's sensible to re-list since it has only been done once. If that happens I will present my keep rationale there and do a little bit more digging/tweaking. Alex Shih (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sup, @Alex Shih: relisted three times, the last by Lourdes with the rationale As no consensus is evident despite this Afd getting listed twice, listing it one concluding time. I haven't highlighted the operative word :) still, you can see, combined with my reply per WP:NONADMINACCT above, my line of thinking. Good to see you here. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah I missed that. I'll probably go improve this page later since I find the subject surprisingly interesting. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, if someone (Alex) can improve and rescue the topic, it's always preferable to nuking it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that duplicate notice here, I didn't notice. Not sure why two were posted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Need advice

Hi Serial Number 54129,

thank you for your message on my talk page. I actually need some advice. I want to create a new Wikipedia article about our product Zenkit. We did a lot of research and created a text which we think is neutral and with enough sources. We have enough coverage in relevant magazines all over the world and match other criteria as well. But as you mentioned, I have a COI. Zenkit is already in the German Wikipedia but just with the help of the community and I appreciate the help of the English Wikipedia as well. Now I need your advice on how to do it. We really did a lot of research and discovered the disclosure for paid articles but I'm not sure where to start. We already have the text we want to show to the community and hope for input and chance until the article is ready to move to the main page. Should I create a Draft in the namespace and ask for help? Or using the Article Wizard? Which is the best way to get help with editing an article? Thanks for your help! --Jessica Lu. (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Make a draft and provide a link to that draft here. I for one, would be happy to take a look at it and see if it can be moved to article space (by someone other than you, of course) as is, after changes or not at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

UoW event

Thanks for the message. I am looking for a few people to keep an eye on some articles relating to biographies of people related to The Anarchy between 14.00 & 17.00 on Mon 1 October. See https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Winchester_University/Medieval_History_Wikimedia_in_the_Classroom for likely articles, but I'm hoping the 20 or so masters students will have sent wiki usernames & the titles of articles they are going to tackle before the event. I will not be able to review all edits by students in real time in the room, so other experienced editors keeping an eye on them and (constructively) guiding the new users remotely would be great.— Rod ^talk 17:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rodw: Always happy to help, I will make myself available for all eventualities, as a feller said. You'll be around to create accounts if necessary though? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

Thanks. I've now got "eventcoordinator status" which enables me to create and confirm accounts.— Rod ^talk 18:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Right: you can't be too careful when it comes to trusting Masters students to prepare...  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rodw: Just a quickie, but the dashboard isn't indicating that anyone has signed up yet? Is this just a tech glitch? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

They haven't told me which articles they want to tackle yet, but I am told there will be 6 or 7 students from 14.00 to 17.00 - will probably get to editing around 15.00 & I will try to add their usernames to the dashboard once I know.— Rod ^talk 17:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Rodw, was just curious. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to join but should see the articles being edited. https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Winchester_University/Medieval_History_Wikimedia_in_the_Classroom/students.— Rod ^talk 15:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Update Well: the final score was 0 articles created, 8 articles edited, over 60 edits, making 815 words added, uploading 1 image to commons...by 8 Editors. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks hopefully they will do some editing post session.— Rod ^talk 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha!

How many years are we looking back? Wild west.......

And this is hilarious!∯WBG^converse 16:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rose Street Club

The article Rose Street Club 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:Rose Street Club for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rose Street Club

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rose Street Club you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rose Street Club

The article Rose Street Club you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rose Street Club for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Slovak Three

The article Slovak Three 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:Slovak Three for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Slovak Three

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Slovak Three you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Previously Contested the Speedy Deletion and was Successful

Hi

Thank you for your assistance I had made my case and Dreamy Jazz removed the speedy deletion tag - I did not remove that.

There was reference to inappropriate citations which I went through and removed any that seemed like an advertisment, which again was acknowledged by Dreamy Jazz.

I have spent two days authoring this content to ensure it does not replicate other content on the subject matter, and I have removed any superfluous content that may make the piece seem like an advertisement.

Thanks for any guidance.

Tracy Keogh (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Replied here. ——SerialNumber54129 11:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Illusioncars

Thanks for your comment at UAA - I am still learning the ropes of Recent change patrolling, I haven't done a speedy deletion proposal before. I'm using Twinkle, and have found the option in the drop-down - I'll do that next time. Nice dog, by the way. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No problem whatsover, and thanks very much. You're always welcome. Take care and happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 12:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

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…
27		Liolà (talk)	Add sources
9		Product displacement (talk)	Add sources
844		Green politics (talk)	Add sources
96		Jean Bastien-Thiry (talk)	Add sources
48		Global Young Greens (talk)	Add sources
41		History of the Jews in Slovakia (talk)	Add sources
17		Paul R. Pillar (talk)	Cleanup
43		Green Party of Quebec (talk)	Cleanup
7		Izigzawen (talk)	Cleanup
62		Federation of Green Parties of Africa (talk)	Expand
418		Green party (talk)	Expand
11		Ecological Movement of Venezuela (talk)	Expand
88		Taiwan general election, 2020 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
34		Maine Green Independent Party (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
154		Crime in Germany (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
13		Kingdom Assembly of Iran (talk)	Merge
35		Signalman (rail) (talk)	Merge
28		First Battle of al-Faw (talk)	Merge
72		National Association of Students of Architecture (talk)	Wikify
774		Lincoln Motor Company (talk)	Wikify
179		Foreign policy of Donald Trump (talk)	Wikify
4		Lotfollah Meisami (talk)	Orphan
8		French judiciary courts (talk)	Orphan
4		Iloilo State University of Science and Technology (talk)	Orphan
4		Shoffner Act (talk)	Stub
35		Egyptian Green Party (talk)	Stub
3		Route 7 BRT (talk)	Stub
13		MEK Compound (talk)	Stub
1,520		Resident Evil 2 (2019 video game) (talk)	Stub
99		Elizabethton Twins (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) 23:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on which you !voted, has been amended

In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum versus RAF Museum: double standards ?

May I request you have a look at the Imperial War Museum Duxford page? You claim that the RAF Museum page was 'overly detailed', but then I wonder why Duxford - a very similar museum - can have such a massive wiki page? I am not criticising you personally - I think you have a fair point when you wish to keep pages concise - but I do feel that a certain standard needs to be agreed upon by comparing between different aviation museum wiki pages. At the moment, there is definitely a double standard between the RAF Museum page and that of the IWM page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishendrix78 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Krishendrix78: Not really, no. The standards are, succinctly: all material must be verifiable; all sources must be reliable, secondary and independent; all statements must be neutrally phrased; and everything must avoid including, generally, anything that Wikipedia is not, and specifically, avoiding any form of promotionalism. Now, if we place Duxford as it is now, with RAFML as was, the difference is surely clear. The Duxford article follows the parameters I laid out above. It makes reliably-sourced statements about the subject in a neutral tone, etc., does not promote it, and every aspect is given due weight.

Now then. There's (probably) no actual reason that the RAFML can't be a good article, just like Duxford, and indeed the latter could be a good template to use. It just might not be the brochure that your boss wants  :) but if you think an article structured along the lines of Duxford would bring both Wikipedia and the Museum credit, then I don't see that as being beyond the bounds of possibility.

Incidentally, you may not be able to edit the article itself any longer, but you can still use the talk page to make suggestions and discuss edits; and we have an internal project that specialises in galleries and museums—they will probably be a great help in identifying sources and help in general. Thanks for the message; I hope this clarifies things a little.——SerialNumber54129 12:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back to me. It is good to hear that there is room for further change. I agree that my original version was biased and promotional. It was not my intention, but the article was not up to wikipedia standards.

I am quite happy with the article now, as it no longer gives outdated information, which was my major issue.

At a later stage in the future, I might ask for further information to be added - again, with the IWM Duxford page as a template and keeping to Wikipedia standards!

Thanks again --Krishendrix78 (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Need advice #2

Hey, a few weeks ago I asked for advice because of an article I wanted to publish and because of the COI I have. I needed advice on where to publish the article to get help from the community with editing. Someone said, I could post a link to the article here but I was sick so I couldn't organize it. I hope it's still okay to show it to you and I'm happy getting advice or just feel free to edit the article by yourself. It would be awesome if the article could be moved to the main Wikipedia afterwards.

That's the article: Zenkit --Jessica Lu. (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)