Open main menu
WMF page header updated.png
"Remarkably unremarkable."
Lazy sleeping barnstar.svgThis user is very lazy. Please feel free to do his work for him.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svgThis user opposes the Wikimedia Foundation's arbitrary, opaque, and dictatorial office-banning of administrators when the community and ArbCom are more than capable of handling the issue themselves.

Leyton cumulonimbii.jpeg

From the absence of study comes the absence of women in history.[1]

Sylvia Federico


Greenock StowawaysEdit


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Best of luck with the GA review.


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

Thanks for restoring my postEdit

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

Cheers MarnetteD, sorry about that :) at least one of those minutes is testament to my steampowered PC! ——SerialNumber54129 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries SN. If your PC is a big as this it must take up a whole room in your home :-) MarnetteD|Talk 12:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Seeing your mention of White Horse whiskey prompts me to leave you this pic for your enjoyment. JW has a whole line of GoT whiskeys in honor of their last season. Glug Glug. MarnetteD|Talk 12:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Brilliant! New slogan: "Stupor is coming" :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Superb!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk pageEdit

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

I've responded there. Your sourcing is/was poor enough, but the NPOV language—worse. ——SerialNumber54129 21:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any NPOV problems - the language that I used is in multiple reliable sources, and doesn't seem to be either praising or damning anything. It's just very plain factual language. Perhaps on the talk page you could explain what you find POV about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It has been explained to you, multiple times. ——SerialNumber54129 09:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 10, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

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

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

Me too...Edit

...[every single time. Like, yesterday. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: It is rather a fag, what? ;) Incidentally, I could've got you that; if you see I'm here, feel free to ask. I don't watch the RX as much as I probably should. ——SerialNumber54129 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits at User:Joseph2302Edit

I noticed that my edit at this user's page, in which I indicated that the user was blocked from editing, was reverted with the reason listed as "please desist from further trolling."

Is this trolling? I truly don't understand. That user is indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia. What, if not that, is {{banned user}} for? My apologies if I did something wrong, but I genuinely don't know why or how my actions came off as "trolling."

Thank you. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, my apologies, I see what the mistake was. This user was blocked indefinitely from enwiki for disruptive editing, but it wasn't necessarily a siteban. I understand why you reverted, please just assume good faith rather than assuming I'm a malicious troll :) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@BrendonTheWizard: please see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Also note that I did not suggest you were a malicous troll. All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 19:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(admin tpw comment) BrendonTheWizard, unless you've a very specific reason to do so then tagging the pages of banned or blocked editors when the blocking admin has declined to do so is a very bad idea, and liable to get you in trouble. There are often good reasons the page hasn't been tagged as such, which won't necessarily be obvious to you. At an absolute bare minimum, ask the blocking admin if they think you should tag the page before you do anything like this. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coterel gangEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coterel gang you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit

The OP failed to find any much support for their position, whereas their templating a single editor—when many were involved—*was* noted. ——SerialNumber54129 08:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Office actions; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Anne drew (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring and lack of consensus-seeking at Wikipedia:Office actions. Anne drew (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Marc BlochEdit

The article Marc Bloch you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Marc Bloch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Federico 2001, p. 159.
Return to the user page of "Serial Number 54129".