User talk:Serial Number 54129

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Serial Number 54129. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi friend, you voted neutral for TNT twice in the steward election, and originally appeared intent to vote no. Just letting you know. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• User:TonyBallioni, Many thanks for alerting me. Oddly, when I removed the duplicate, it seemed to remove both—but think it's sorted now, third time lucky. Take care! Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Predicting

to the contrary. Let's see:-) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: actually, I agree with you; I was choosing my words...deliberately  :) Perhaps I should have narrowed it to "sensible opposes", though.

:-) The narrowinged one could have been surely better, at any case! By the way; it's probably better to suppress the IP-sig.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry; how long have I been editing WMF projects? 94.12.222.40 14:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I thought that the IP-sig was a mistake (it has happened to me, whilst editing logged out:-)) and that it might be better to ask for OSers to suppression; privacy et al. Or was it my reply; which was weirdly ill-phrased? Apologies, Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, doesn't meta allow thanking people? Weirdly, I can't spot any link to thank.......Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: yeah, it's so important that we treat it as a safe place that we can't even thank each other. WTMF?! Wot deep sh*t though? 94.12.222.40 14:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nah; I see that the ever-helpful Billinghurst mentions on my t/p about Meta not adopting thanking from watchlists, which explain it:-) I ought to have checked from the diff-view:( And, FSP is a joke (did Jimbo, the projected beacon of civility, initiate this molly-cuddling culture?) which pretty much guarantees the thrive of sheer incompetency; provided you are civil enough. They threw Sitush down the road, much ago and now trying to throw me off (we are right wing trolls, after all.....) as I reorient my ways to extract as much info as possible out of these grant-mazes that goes on to wreck perpetual havoc over en. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Right! Btw, huh?!  :) 94.12.222.40 15:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw you making that comment over someone's stewards' election last-year and it seemed pretty good play with numbers! So, just made a note over my t/p and named that SN's rule:-) More of a note (ought to have used sandbox.....)Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Why oppose Ancient Greek?

You should know that there are benefits and speakers of Ancient Greek. --2409:8902:9301:F7F8:1FC0:6702:8454:4E37 01:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Established to be a sock of

To be clear, when you claim User:BarryBoggside has been established to be a sock of AttackTheMoonNow" here, especially in a context that has no apparent relevance, it only becomes more obvious that a critical crucial step, namely proving use of a sock-puppet was abusive, as a complete aside to whether the means of investigation/discovery are abiding by the established rules, is being ommitted.

In reality, I could be Jimmy Wales himself, investigating how en.wiki deals with a newcomer attempting to ask legitimate questions at an RfA in light of the updated ArbCom against fishing, and to that effect I could have deliberately obtained a device I knew had previously been used by a blocked sock. I am not, obviously, I don't have the beard for one, but that should give you some idea of why there is a necessary step required in local en.wiki policy between discovering a technical match, and substantiation of a charge of abusive sock-puppetry.

My defence could be similar, it could be entirely different, but as you well know, the effect of the illegitimate inspection of my personal data was to move to an immediate block, and thereafter swiftly to a talk page lockout, with local functionaries studiously avoiding pertinent details and merely standing behind already flawed assumptions. In common parlance, circling the wagons and digging the hole deeper. Localism in action.

I understand why you might see the proposal designed to prevent future occurrences as a weaponisation therefore, as a local yourself, but in my view, anyone who wields a weapon in that fashion, can only be on the side of the common good, right? If we are to live in a world where we can safely assume that "ArbCom says don't do X" and "Local Functionary just did X" has but only one logical outcome on a local project, run by local people, with no need of outside oversight, much less a Foundation led course correction, as seen in recent scandals that touched on similar themes of dissonance and over-reach of localism as against the common good, indeed the law itself. On that score, it was a surprise to see in that SPI, Bbb23 refusing to be a party to a witch hunt, so perhaps he has been unfairly treated after all. The evidence against him is private, alas.

And so, with that said, if at all possible, mindful of the Meta people's distaste for their pages being distracted and misdirected by potentially irrelevant asides that seem to refer only to disputes of foreign origin, can you please explain how that observation of the latest results of en.wiki CheckUsers presumably trying to bolster their case in light of OC questioning, is remotely relevant to your apparent view that my proposal is "a blatant attempt to weaponise one wiki against another". Had you perhaps mispoke, and when you say "oppose", given your past behaviour, here and elsewhere, what you perhaps meant to say was "removed entirely as just trolling"?

On Billinghurst's advice, I am trying to approach things in a less emotional and more detached fashion, in the spirit of understanding another's reasons for doing what they do, before condemning it based on my own understanding of the moral framework that is meant to exist here. I hope I will not be dissappointed. BarryBoggside (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but coparcent with civility is honesty, and at the moment I do not know who I am talking to. Please sign in under your original account. ——SerialNumber54129 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not entitled to know, and WP:CIV requires you to treat everyone the same, even those you suspect are lying to your face. These are the facts, the dishonesty is you even pretending they are not. There are even en.wiki Administrators whose original account is not known, all perfectly allowed, it is not your place as an ordinary editor to even ask, much less use it as a reason to openly disrespect them. BarryBoggside (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, sock, I don't think WP:CIV is likely to cut a lot of ice around here. What's your next account going to be? CraigCregggan? BillyBrandyyywell? ShelbyShannntallow? ...etc. ——SerialNumber54129 23:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If WP:CIV doesn't do it for you, I doubt MW:CIV gets you any closer to official acceptance of your approach to those you believe are being dishonest. BarryBoggside (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please log in to your original account. ——SerialNumber54129 07:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikispore Creative Commons licensing

Can you please add your username to Wikispore:Talk:Copyrights, to help us finish the license adoption process on Wikispore?--Pharos (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Steward voting

Hey, could you please use the designated template when voting? Otherwise the template must be added afterwards, like here for example. This will also be used automatically when you use the big gray 'Vote' button to vote. Regards --ZabeMath (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers.com access is being restored

You are receiving this message because our records indicate that you used Newspapers.com via The Wikipedia Library in the past year. Newspapers.com has been affected by a number of technical issues over that time period, which most recently caused it not to work at all. If you aren't already familiar, further details can be found at T322916.

We're pleased to share that we have found a solution which will restore access to Newspapers.com's content! Newspapers.com have agreed to move back to our old method of granting access, whereby users must first register at Newspapers.com, then apply via The Wikipedia Library, and then accounts are upgraded to a subscribing one by Newspapers.com. We have updated Newspapers.com to accept applications in the library, so you can apply now!

This change is unfortunately mutually exclusive with the limited proxy-based access working, so any of the technical workarounds that have been discussed should no longer work, along with any proxy-based access to Newspapers.com. I hope you agree that this brief bump will be worth it in the long run.

As a reminder, this change means that you will need to renew your access on a yearly basis. If you have an email configured in The Wikipedia Library you should receive an email a few weeks before this expiry to remind you to submit an extension request, but brief yearly loss of access may be a side effect of this access method. The good news is that this access method means that you shouldn't encounter any technical problems besides normal operational problems on Newspapers.com's end, which should be few and resolved quickly - otherwise the website should work just as if you were a normal customer.

If you have any questions please ask them at this Meta announcement. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)