User talk:Ser!

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2021/August; 2021/October; 2021/November; 2021/December; 2022/April; 2022/June; 2022/August; 2022/October; 2022/November; 2022/December; 2023/June; 2023/July; 2023/August; 2023/September; 2023/October; 2023/November; 2023/December; 2024/January; 2024/February; 2024/March; 2024/April; 2024/May; 2024/June; 2024/July; 2024/August;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

BEFORE YOU POST HERE:

If you are replying to a comment I have made on your talk page, please consider replying to me on your talk page instead of here. It makes it much easier to have a discussion in one place. Same goes for any page where there's already a discussion going on.
Please remember to sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~), so I know who I'm replying to.
To start a new topic, please click on this link.

Your GA nomination of Ged Nash

The article Ged Nash you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ged Nash for comments about the article, and Talk:Ged Nash/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean to comment again about ElectionsIreland.org, but forgot -- it's OK if you want to leave it in, but if you do have other sources that you can cite instead that might be better. Or if you're confident that further review would mean it can be considered fully reliable, that's fine too. I also wanted to say that if you nominate anything else and are looking for a reviewer, let me know; I'd be happy to review another of yours -- this one was painless! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I checked to see if I could find a county council source for the elections but regrettably a lot of their stuff isn't online from that era. Much appreciated re the further review, glad to have spared you the pain! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision

‘Undid revision 1235647610 by 80.41.108.1 (talk) WP:NOTFORUM, this page is for discussion of how to improve the page, not what you think is right or wrong undo’

But this comment is acceptable :o

“It was pretty silly of Robinson to attempt to enter the USA with someone else's passport, but I'm not denying that he has committed some serious offences”, ♦IanMacM♦ 89.240.197.129 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've omitted the context from the start of the comment which makes it relevant to a comment someone else made about the Wikipedia page itself... ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so ;) 80.47.181.211 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock?

Hey, I see you were engaged in a dispute with T931201 (talk · contribs) which resulted in them being temporarily blocked. I just wanted to let you know that it seems like just after their block was implemented, a new account by the name of TTCP0906 (talk · contribs) has been created with extremely similar editing habits to T931201. Their edits on the Talk:Miss Universe 2024 article seem to suggest they already have experience in editing despite having no contributions before today and they are continuing a dispute that T931201 had taken part in regarding adding countries to the tables before a candidate was selected (Talk:Miss Universe 2024#Addition of country / Misses in the table). I just wanted to put this on your radar as possible block evading and sockpuppetry in case you thought an investigation was worthwhile. For what it's worth, I had already been suspicious that T931201 is a possible sock of the blocked France-Pt9301 (talk · contribs). { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya @Jjj1238: thanks for letting me know about this. Looking at this, it seems incredibly likely to me that this is indeed a sockpuppet situation. I'll file a report in the next few minutes. If it's indeed the case that it's the sock of an existing account that will likely show up in checkuser results. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser! You notice on the one hand that I am not trying to deny that it is me and as a bonus of that, I have not posted any message on the discussion page of the Eurovision Song Contest 2025 concerning France, a sign that I I learn from my mistakes. TTCP0906 (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjj1238 It’s actually me. I created this account in order to be able to leave messages (and not modify, proof is, I have not made any modifications with this account) although I continue to find this ban unfair. However, I respect it and do not modify it for 24 hours as the ban requires. Furthermore, I will no longer seek to modify the Eurovision Song Contest 2025 article to remove France, if it amuses you to keep erroneous information in an article, too bad for you. TTCP0906 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was easier than I expected. SPI report filed. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser! Why pick on me ? TTCP0906 (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred, got blocked for it and are now flaunting Wikipedia rules by creating a new account. I'm not picking on you, these are Wikipedia rules. Please do not leave another message on my talk page, I am not wasting my time with this. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjj1238: France-Pt9301 and T931201 are actually the same person. They confessed to it on their french talk page. And then deleted it. See that diff. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This just gets worse and worse, doesn't it? Thanks for letting us know, I'll mention on the investigation page. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to note that Rio0106 was also blocked from wiki:fr but France-Pt9301 was not although I will ask if it's possible to do it. I wonder if there may be a starting case for cross wiki bann altogether Yoyo360 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoyo360 I don't think this one is intentional, they don't repeat that at French wiki, correct? I also can't find Rio0106 at French wiki [1]. Let's just focus on edit warring here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Kenneth Khi oh yes they do exist. Right here. Late edit but rereading I realised I inverted the numbers, it's Rio0601 not Rio0106, hence the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyo360 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoyo360 I agree Rio0601 engaged in intentional fr-wiki sockpuppetry, but it was long ago in October 2022 - January 2023. T931201 did not engage in intentional fr-wiki sockpuppetry though, I checked all the edits made, which are only three edits, made in the same day last month, was not in a manner that corroborate another of their own. TTCP0906 has been permabanned, and the reason was not dishonesty but block evasion, so I think sockpuppetry matter has been resolved here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Kenneth Kho Yeah the accounts T931201 and TTCP0906 don't really matter on frwiki but the account France-Pt9301, which is also a sockpuppet of Rio0601 is still active there while it has been blocked here for a while. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts are all blocked now as a result of a sockpuppet investigation, so I guess we can put this to bed for now and keep an eye out in case the user tries to return. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind of my objections, I just took a look at the list of ten sockpuppets still operated by them in 2024[2]. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... and sorry I missed that; lots going on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! Just had to make sure I wasn't missing out on any policy. And thanks to you as well for keeping the page well-kept - you're doing stellar work. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are so kind :) I still have SOOOOO much to add, but have been sick, and have had problems with my internet provider (finally solved), so I just can't keep up. I hope I can start chunking in some of the missing content from dozens of sources by this weekend. I appreciate any bit you've been able to do (and I do read edit summaries :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections \| Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Moreno Edit/Undo

I hope that I'm putting this in the proper place, as I don't often respond to other Wiki users. Yesterday, I had changed something on Bernie Moreno's page, and in doing so, I made an inadvertent mistake. I changed the terminology of a particular word, but I also changed it in the context of a quote, and that was my error. However, you reverted both changes, noting that the word was used in the source. I wanted to stop by to note that the word was improperly used in the source. The women being discussed were not necessarily mothers, and the author had no way to know if hypothetical women were mothers or not. Therefore, the term that should be utilized is women, and that's why I changed it. I don't think that we should repeat the mistakes of a source. Jmg999 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jmg999:, sorry for the late response - got this notification and forgot totally. I'm not firmly set on the phrasing of "mother", mostly just saw the quote being changed and thought it'd be best to represent what the source says. Plus pretty much all of the terminology I've ever seen refers to the "mother's life" rather than the woman's life. For future reference, you'd be as well raising this on the article talk page though - other editors may have thoughts on it. Thanks, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, @Ser!,

Thank you for your response, and thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I agree w/ you that the term "mother" or "mother's life" is often used, but I think that it's a mistake made by the media, since they're assuming facts not in evidence. I'll change the term on Moreno's page again, and if anyone has issue, I'll make certain to discuss it on the page's talk page. Thanks, again! Jmg999 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "If this happen"?

Did I write something wrong on Peggy Flanagan's article that is not we are not to suppose write it?

How would you write it that is not if this happen? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The issue wasn't with your writing, it's with putting content about "if X happens, Y will happen" in the lede; it just doesn't seem overly significant that it could happen. If she becomes governor then it probably will be, but until then it falls into WP:CRYSTAL territory IMO. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When do you think it would be a good time to put the edit back? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Walz is elected and Flanagan is now officially in line to become governor, I'd say then. But this is only my opinion, so do feel free to raise this on the talk page if you disagree. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be lieutenant governor if Peggy Flanagan was a governor? I was thinking Mohamud Noor. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with Minnesota's politics, so your guess is as good as mine... ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mike Cubbard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Cubbard 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/Mike Cubbard 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 until the discussion has finished.

Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
October 22–24 - Discussion phase
October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 22–24 - Discussion phase
October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]