Constablequackers

DYK

Hi Constablequackers, I saw your new article Buurtpoes Bledder, and was wondering if you would mind me nominating it for DYK? Thanks, Matty.007 14:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated it here. Matty.007 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

M'kay. I'm not really familiar with DYK. This is a good thing, right? :) Constablequackers (talk)

I think it has got quite a few views, I will give you a precise number tomorrow. Matty.007 18:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It got 8721 views. Matty.007 20:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for nominating it and letting me know how many views it drew. Cheers. Constablequackers (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks for writing a great article. Matty.007 16:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Buurtpoes Bledder

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Portland Mercury

Would you happen to have some kind of connection to the newspaper? Your changes include things like the name, or the changes in staffing without attributing the source either in edit summary or reference within the article, so naturally it makes me wonder how you're coming upon this information.staffing change, supposed name change of publication Graywalls (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Afraid not, beyond picking up copies of the paper on occasion or reading its website. The Mercury's slight name changes are well known to anyone who is familiar with the publication. It's hardly a huge secret. The staff themselves seem to be having a hard time keeping it straight as well. As you've noted, it's Mercury on the masthead. However, it still appears as The Mercury or the Mercury on their website. Constablequackers (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Buurtpoes Bledder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buurtpoes Bledder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buurtpoes Bledder (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 20:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Keeping links working

Hello, In your edit Special:Diff/977355454 there and several other ones, links were broken after your changes. When you change [[Los Angeles Times]] to [[The Los Angeles Times]] the link will no longer work, because what's in the parenthesis needs to be exactly the same as the actual target. If you need to change the displayed text, then please format it like this and place the target first, then what you want the text to appear in plae of XXXX. [[The Los Angeles Times|XXX]]. Graywalls (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh no! I had no idea that was going to happen. I'll go back through and switch the links back to the versions that were in place before I started editing. Thanks for letting me know and I'll be sure *not* to do this in the future. Constablequackers (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability of buurtpoes Bledder

Hello Constablequackers,

A few day ago I removed mention of buurtpoes Bledder from the Leiden article. I did this, as I thought it was a joke to include Bledder. As a Leidenaar and animal lover, I do not consider Bledder a notable inhabitant, nor is it according to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Significant_coverage: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." I would also consider that if Bledder would qualify to be a notable Leidenaar, quite a few more inhabitants should be included, making it a very long list. That would also be incompatible with WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia articles should not be: [...] Excessive listings". Can we agree to remove the mention, or do you have arguments against removal from the Leiden article? NewtonFan (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point, but the Bledder article has been on the Leiden page for several years now. It's survived several edits and a reorganization a year or two ago. People seem to find it amusing and I think it should remain, but it should definitely be at the bottom of the list. He doesn't deserve to be placed alongside much more notable historical figures, obviously. Constablequackers (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Something being on a page for a few years doesn't mean it should stay. When it comes to correcting mistakes: "beter laat dan nooit" / "better late than never". Amusing it is in a way, but it isn't Wikipedia's or an encyclopedia's goal to be amusing... NewtonFan (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "amusing" wasn't the correct term to use, but it's definitely amusing. The cat was worthy of his own Wikipedia page and its inclusion on the Leiden page has survived plenty of updates from other editors. You're the first person to flag it. I think it should stay put. If you really want to see it go, maybe the thing to do would be to start a discussion over on the talk back page for the Leiden page and find out what other folks think. My vote = keep. Constablequackers (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Welcome to That Whole Thing

The article Welcome to That Whole Thing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:GNG. Searching for sources yields practically nothing.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a page for a podcast that ceased being produced around seven years ago. There's not going to be many, if any, additional sources floating around out there. I'll leave this one be and come what may. Constablequackers (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

personal attacks

Hi, this isn't a templated warning, instead I'm leaving something human and personalized. Please stop with the direct and indirect personal attacks at Voodoo Doughnut, such as in commit messages and talk messages. Even your comment about not making it personal has some choice digs in it. You've been here long enough to know what the boundaries are, if not please read WP:NPA. tedder (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Tedder. Thanks for the message and sorry for the drama. This editor is someone who has spent *years* undoing my edits and additions to Wikipedia pages, so much so that I've limited the time I spend here. I have a list of pages I've wanted to improve and work on but haven't because I figure he'll come along and cause trouble. He's (I assume they're a he) also been equally aggressive with other editors in the past. One of his favorite things to do is follow them around and undo their edits on not just one but multiple pages and typically for extremely subjective and/or pedantic reasons. He's been called out on this *multiple* times over the years. So it is very, very difficult to assume good faith with this individual and remain patient with him. His peculiar desire to include the choking incident in the intro for the VD page while repeatedly removing more conventional content is also quite bizarre and suggests he has some sort of vendetta against the company. Constablequackers (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)