Serial Number 54129

Cheers Jon698; it was Levivich who did all the "heavy lifting", actually helping you—I just did a slow burn in the corner. Mind you, did I send you a bunch of books? Anyway, the article's looking dead good. Good work! ——Serial 18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Hey, cool. But I basically just wrote the original article; many moons ago I realised that any article put forward for ITN would be taken over, not so much by gatekeepers, but by trivialistas and this hasn't proved me wrong. Still, collectivism is the name of the day!  :) SN54129 06:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to give an admiring thumbs-up for your subheads for Index, A History of the. Bravo! Flaggingwill (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• omg congrats!!! Lourdes 10:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  In this case, I think 'omg' must stand for 'oh my gog'  :) SN54129 18:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

much Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, long time no talk. I think you are being waited for here for a sign off. Hope all is well, no news here except that Damo Suzuki died yesterday so I am sad. Here is a tune in return [1]. Ceoil (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ceoil I must've let that drop away. Yes, shame about Damo. Hope he had enough Vitamin C! Good tune that... Bring on the CAN-style drum solos. :) ——Serial 11:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Surprised to read that he spent a few weeks in Ireland before absconding to Cologne. <raises a pint of Guinness to me could have been mucker. RIP>. Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just played Yard Act three times on the trot. Fckn hell they're a rattling bunch! Great find. ——Serial 11:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah same here, they are amazing, that bass sound...and the vocal trawl...wow. This is a top ten of all time favourite [2]. Ceoil (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely terrific stuff. Well done! DBaK (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

– Hilst [talk] 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

From what have heard the sound is way better than on the original ep. [3] Preview Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the red alert Ceoil, I guess I'm hardwired to pre-order that  :) There are some good boots from that era, I wonder if they've polished one up fo this? I mean, Grant Showbiz used to do it for his own personal pension fund! ——Serial Number 54129 15:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the previews, I would have selected different boots. Was disappointing at the choices for "Leave the Capitol" and "Middle Mass"; would have gone for the 2nd night in Reykjavik 1981 recordings myself,[4] but guess he (ie Steve Hanley) had to think about fidelity as it is mostly a vinyl release. [shrug]. At least its good to see the band finally making money from re-releases, considering all the awful contracts Mark signed them up to in the 90s when he was short on cash. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

ps, Fall type bass heavy tunes are going through a revival in last three years....skip to 4:17 here for the best of the bunch. What an incredible drummer. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks LunaEatsTuna, but it involved absolutely no imagination on my part. Why do you have 'Template' in your sig. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

After several valid complaints, I have since changed it. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), we do what we must because we can – posted at 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, OK, but it seems a lot of fuss about nothing. Who gets into a long dance over templates. More power on your tax evasion, btw. ——Serial Number 54129 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congrats - great work! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Hchc2009 for the kind words—and also nice to see you pop back in every now and again. Your medieval presence is much missed; I learned much from you when merely a noob, and there weren't many medievalists around. To be honest, there might be even less now. Fancy writing up Thomas' final battle together? :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.

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) 23:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

•   Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
•   Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
•   AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
•   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there SN. I don't know if we've had the pleasure, but I've been aware of your prolific work for some time. Do you think the White Ship page ought to be named something like "White Ship disaster"? It has always struck me as odd that the title is merely the ship. Particularly strange since we have the Victims of the White Ship disaster article. Aza24 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aza24, hi, I've seen you around FAC, I think? Thanks for the note, and I must apologise for my tardiness in replying. I'm afraid I have a memory like a sieve nowadays  :) I think you're prright, actually. To me, an article on a ship should be about the ship as a whole to which any disaster (say) is just a portion. I guess Titanic and Sinking of the Titanic is a similar example, if a far larger/more notable one. But for a medieval ship, there's only so much we can ever know about its order, construction, launch, victualing, crewing, ownership, voyages, etc., and where, like the White ship, the most notable event by far is its sinking, that's what the article focuses on, and of course, the article title should reflect the article itself. Per the principle of least astonishment, if the article is called the White Ship, then the reader will expect an article about the ship; likewise, if an article is called White Ship disaster, then they will know that when they click the link, they will find an article about the sinking rather than the boat itself. And as you say, that's already accepted logic in the Victims of article—that the disaster is effectively the primary topic.SerialNumber54129 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

PS, if you happen to be around FAC these days, I've got something there at the moment, although if it bores you to tears, that's pretty understandable  :) thanks for looking in again! SerialNumber54129 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the thoughtful response! I've started a discussion, incorporating some of your feedback, at Talk:White Ship#Requested move 7 September 2024 – Aza24 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments in the FAC, - I replied now, - interesting aspect! - Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. - To celebrate the day, I listened to Bruckner's Eighth on radio, conducted by Dennis Russell Davies. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy because my story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just thought it would be easier to discuss this on your talk than through edit summaries. If you think the close should be updated/corrected/whatever you should probably ask WereSpielChequers if that's what they would prefer. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very funny Primefac. Of course, you're absolutely right. And I no way meant to suggest trolling or anything like that. Merely a gentle... digging out, perhaps. Of the kind that Fram's probably used to by now. And probably doesn't care about. Because if he did, he wouldn't be where he is today. I guess I just don't like being thought of as stupid. I remember WSC from the London meetups, funnily enough, where—and I hope this isn't OUTING!—I seem to recall him regularly getting stuck into the famed Wetherspoon's mixed grill  :) I hope he's still enjoying them! SerialNumber54129 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm still a regular at the London meetup, but can't remember when I last ordered the mixed grill. When Mrs WSC discovered that the low cholesterol level I was such a martyr to was from a 1989 test she made me get it measured again. These days we have good and bad cholesterol and its the just the good cholesterol that I have a low level of. Spoons being known for their beer rather than their food I have a number of choices on their menu that I'm unlikely to try again, so nowadays it is the Mandalorian curry if I'm feeling virtuous or the steak and kidney pudding if I'm feeling that I've been healthy in my last month's dining. As for the close, it was near unanimous, and I thought I was paying respect to that as opposed to simply saying successful. ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Poor ole Spicy, not getting the regal treatment even with his self-nom'd higher-by-eleven !votes result  ;) The Mandalorian curry sounds like something out of the Star Wars franchise (from the cantina, perhaps!), but you can't beat a proper pudding all day long. That's pretty much off, and continues to be off, the menu for me, too. Back on topic, though, WereSpielChequers, I now see that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent uses a Greater-than sign; that's new, isn't it? Anything to do with this edit? (@Primefac too.) SerialNumber54129 16:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Huh, that seems a bit silly, quibbling over 99 and 99.X% Surprised I never noticed it before. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that means I've been inconsistent. Hopefully I will be consistent for the future, unless of course anyone objects to the change. No comment re the template. ϢereSpielChequers 18:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WereSpielChequers: Well, I'm sure interested parties will be observing keenly for future consistency. I recommend gelatin. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 13:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your this closing of a move request on Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama appears to have done without considering sources whereas you apparently considered the opinion of a single disruptive editor on the subject having a conflict of interest on it. It might be worth talking a look at this discussion also. So what remedy need to be made? Neutralhappy (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, interesting... @Spworld2: are you a disruptive user? Please desist if so. Or is this a broader misunderstanding between two pretty experienced editors, underpinned by differing operating philosophies? SerialNumber54129 11:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Premeditated Chaos thanks for the message! (First time, apparently!) Yes, it was good fun doing; and a dead good read too, if bizarre minuscule is a favoured genre (not that it even is a genre, but). I'd like to have taken it further—I've collected a shed load of respectable reviews, etc in the years since, but I suspect that'll be the point when it gets stripped of anything fun  :) if you know what I mean. It's a shame though, cos the book deserves to be promoted in anti-G11/NOTPROMO way. I hope you're well! I had a look for the Paper article you were after, but they don't even seem to have an archive of their own? Let alone anywhere else. Did you have any joy? SerialNumber54129 17:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm well, hope you are also :) Shame about the Paper article, but it's so common with mid-90s magazines. It's really awful to think of how much cultural output has been lost for lack of digital archiving.

I do like unusual reading, so I've popped Index on my library list. Can't say you're promoting it if it's all paid for by the king's money, right? I know how you feel wrt that level of "professionalising" kind of stripping the fun out, but I can't imagine it not at least being GA-able without losing the good stuff. (And, you know...I do do GA reviews, should you ever decide to pull the trigger on it.) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

May I ask how the summary of the conclusions reached “RfC that is not an RfC”, here.In this discussion,two editors thought this was not RFC. Two editors (including me) thought editorial synthesis of published material implied a new conclusion. I think there is no consensus was reached here for now. I request you to review this discussion and reconsider this procedural close. If final conclusion is still “closing it”, the reason “no consensus was reached” is much acceptable for me.--Kof2102966 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Because there is no reply in 5 days, I decided to appeal. No offence, I just couldn't wait so long, it doesn't mean I try to accuse you of anything.Kof2102966 (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect T:QB has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 15 § T:QB until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply