User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 33


 * This is my archive for threads from 2019 that don't belong in my themed archives.

And a Happy New Year
  Merry Rexxmas 2018

Yo Ho Ho


Liz Read! Talk! is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

>Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Château de Ricey-Bas
Type in haste, repent at leisure! Many thanks for correcting my delicious error.

Happy New Year. Emeraude (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the article, much more important and time consuming than my little typo fixing! And a Happy New Year to you as well.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, WereSpielChequers!


Happy New Year! WereSpielChequers, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 15:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

).

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you for the lovely Christmas greetings to share! Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, WSC!


Happy New Year! Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best, WSC, <br /

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's unexpected, and a little scary. I'm trying to remember what I have done that is so medically related, culling female rabbits from wikipedia being the obvious thing. I'm impressed at how many regulars at the London meetup are on the list.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
Good day to you sir! My name is Fritzmann2002 and I am a hobby editor who wanted to ask you a favor. Recently, you made a helpful little copyedit on List of Hypericum species. While this was probably just from scrolling through random doing your thing and you have no special interest in the article, I was wondering if you could give me a hand with it. Your profile says you do some Featured Article Review, and I have been trying to bring this article up to Featured List status for almost two years now. I put it up for peer review a few months ago to see where I was progress wise, but didn't get any response. What I'd like to ask is if you would be so kind as to take a look over the article and give me a few pointers or suggestions on how to bring it up to that level of quality, or if it is already where it needs to be. Thank you so much, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Fritzmann, and Good day to you too. I've read through and made a couple of tweaks that are hopefully helpful, plus a query on the talkpage. i'm afraid biology is not my forte, I haven't studied it for more than forty years, so I really don't feel up to doing a peer review. But you could ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants. As for the article, I'd be inclined to add some images, perhaps even minigalleries if you can illustrate things like "The leaves are either opposite or 3-whorled and are free and either sessile or petiolate." by using pictures of sessile, petiolate 3 whorled and opposite species. You might also consider linking to more terms that are Biology jargon, at least on the first use of a term. Cheers and happy editing  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, please check this for potential vandalism. The editor also added this on Meta which i have reverted. Thanks Leutha (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Article 'Maghrebis'
Why did this appear in the article heading?

"The Moors were simply Maghrebis, inhabitants of the maghreb, the western part of the Islamic world, that extends from Spain to Tunisia, and represents a homogeneous cultural entity."

Spain has never been part of the Maghreb, Spain is part of Europe. What do you think? Blade and the rest (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A few centuries ago Portugal and almost all of Spain was part of the Islamic world and at least partly inhabited by Moors, so I suspect that is where it comes from. Not my subject area, but maybe worth starting a thread on Talk:Maghrebis. The precedent for discussing areas where boundaries have changed over time is Gdansk/Danzig where after much debate we wound up with a complex policy as to which historical eras and contexts we use Gdansk or Danzig. Funny thing is when we had wikimania in Gdansk we discovered that both the Germans and the Poles thought it hilarious that the English language Wikipedia had had one of its biggest ever disputes over Gdansk v Danzig.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello.

I hope you're doing well. I want a dispute resolution about the arguments I have been having with another user named Vauxford. These arguments started at the Toyota Hilux page when I removed his image on the grounds that the vehicle involved was not in a good condition as per WP:CARPIX guidelines in response to which he admitted that he didn't like those guidelines and insisted that the vehicle couldn't be found in good condition. His claim was proven to be false as there were better images of the vehicle at Wikimedia Commons. Full discussion can be be found at Talk:Toyota Hilux. Then he began to argue about his image being placed in the main infobox of the Audi R8 (Type 4S) page when it was already present at the Audi R8 page. He even took a matter which could be solved through a talk page discussion to administrator notice board and this resulted in both of us being blocked for 24 hours because of his constant arguments there. When the block was lifted, he agreed to let the current image stay in the main infobox after other editors made clear that it really wasn't any different from the standard model of the vehicle. He suddenly started arguing that his image should be placed within the article as there was a lack of pre facelift image of the vehicle there when there was an image of the subject matter present in the article. Full discussion can be found at the Talk:Audi R8 (Type 4S) page. Then when I replaced the image on the BMW 5 Series (E60) page with an image having better quality. He started to argue that the previous one was fine when it clearly wasn't. It was a low quality image which couldn't be viewed in thumbnail mode properly. I discussed the matter on his talk page but he didn't reply there. He started his own discussion at the article's talk page and obtained his concensous without notifying me of such a discussion. Now I started my own discussion and isolated him from giving an opinion since he didn't allow me to give my opinion on the prior discussion. He kept commenting about the background of he photos I proposed when his photos clearly involve such backgrounds. He didn't stop there, after a concensous was reached again in the discussion, he again reverted the edit claiming that a concensous was not reached and that his concensous held more weightage when clearly his concensous involved far less photos from users to choose from. He then began accusing me of framing him as a "bad person" when his actions were of that way and other users had also complained about how he reverted edits in that discussion. Full discussion can be found here Talk:BMW 5 Series (E60).

Now I'm not claiming that my behaviour in these arguments have been the best as his behaviour is also irritating and annoying. Such arguments are not only destructive but are also damaging my credibility as an editor. They are also wasting my time which I spend in defending arguments. Now I request you, as an administrator, to please solve this dispute so that we can focus to contribute to Wikipedia.

Have a nice day. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to tell my side of the story. Surprisingly, most of what you described was exactly what happened. However, just to clarify those "other users". One of which was 1292simon which you provoked him to say something about it and I admit I did the same thing when I wanted them to know about the previous photo which I was defending and to make sure that wasn't being thrown out of the discussion. The other user Alexender-93 is not actually active on the English Wikipedia. He mostly edits on the German Wikipedia but every often he just goes to all of the Wikipedias and replace any existing images of the subject with his, to me he was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time.


 * Keep in mind, U1Quattro has made a few accusation on me, most of which were simply not true. One of them he claimed that I was favouritiseing certain photographers because I once had them on my user page as a Top 5 favourite photography list. But I did that list back when I first joined Wikipedia 2 years ago and was still settling. I found it slightly elementary nowadays and my views had changed with these photographers so I removed it, it unfortunate coincident that I did this edit during when the feud between me and U1Quattro began. Another thing he didn't put the effort of doing is by checking who the author of the photograph that I was actually defending and simply place assumption and used it as facts.


 * The fact I ended up getting me and U1Quattro was my fault, I had no intention of doing that for malicious reasons and I guess that when the started to erupted. I'm sorry that I caused all that, I was just in a panic and did it without thinking straight, I should've done it on the talkpage discussion which I have learnt now to do rather then edit warring which that hopefully apply to you as well. --Vauxford (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this, started to draft some advice, slept on it, and now I have the pair of you here. Welcome both, draft answer now metaphorically torn up. One of our most important policies is assume good faith, and another is civility, both are well worth rereading. I'd rather not go over old ground and say which of you I think has been less civil, I'd rather ask if you are both willing to bury the hatchet and assume good faith of each other in the future?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  08:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm more than willing to bury the hatchet and let this dispute be a thing of the past. However, as annoying and rude Vauxford has been, I'd rather avoid him in the future. U1 quattro  TALK''  08:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Although it would be nicer if this was kept in the past, avoiding each other will be awkward since we edit the same articles. --Vauxford (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

California Online Community College
Hello. The California Legislature created the "California Online Community College" last year. Please make a "stub article" about this new college and notify me that you have done so. I will then start filling in the details about the new college.

See California Education Code Section 75001.

Thank you. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Scott, education in California isn't really my subject area, I'm more into iron age hill forts. Something set up last year may not yet be notable for wikipedia, but if it is getting non trivial coverage in reliable independent sources then it may be ready for an article. If so this wizard should help you through the process.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"Cutting slack"
I think you misunderstood what I was saying here. That is in large part my fault as, in keeping the comment brief, I evidently wasn't clear enough. My point isn't about treating longstanding candidates more favourably. It's a different one. Where someone has been editing the project for years, and those opposing wish to raise *a pattern* of problematic behaviour, there is a naturally going to be a need to provide more evidence. It is a similar point to the one I made back in Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion so not a new approach by me. In that chat I said: "What I find surprising is that Nihonjoe is not an unknown quantity when it comes to making these sorts of a decision (as an RfA candidate might be) - he has been an admin for 3 1/2 years. But those opposing do not, as one might expect, cite a range of incidents over that period where he displays this alleged tendency - instead the conclusion is extrapolated from his participation in a discussion with Ryan last month. I have to say that I find this problematic - there is a dearth of examples of other instances of problematic judgment." I was intending the same point in relation to RexxS, i.e. if RexxS is routinely uncivil, given his long tenure on the project I would expect more than the few instances that were cited in the RfA. Ping who pinged me, and understood my comment as I intended. WJBscribe (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Will, thanks for the explanation, now you put it that way I can see that mine was not the only possible interpretation of your words. Apologies for misunderstanding you. I still think it would be worthwhile to have a discussion as to the sorts of things that crats could or should take into account when closing RFAs, but sadly the mood at WT:RFA is not currently conducive to such a discussion. Re the tenure thing, my test as an RFA voter and nominator is more whether there is old bad behaviour, does that persist, are there recent examples? That isn't quite the same as cutting extra slack for long established editors, but I suppose one area where I do is the concept of an isolated incident. If there are two very similar RFAs, both with a single recent incident of the candidate losing their temper, I would be more easily convinced that this was an isolated incident that would be unlikely to recur if the candidate had been active for fifteen years without some similar incident than if they could only point to fifteen months activity without a similar incident.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
you've got mail Dust</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 20:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion regarding Bruno Bettelheim article
As a past contributor to the article, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

ArbCom 2019 special circular
<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;"> <span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular"> <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none"> <div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi - hope all is well; I’ve just sent you an email. :-) Patient Zerotalk 00:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail
ygm —Gazoth (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

New article Villa degli Azzoni Avogadro (Bivai)
Hi Ϣere Spiel  Chequers , Can you please review new article Villa degli Azzoni Avogadro (Bivai) ? Many thanks Neverstopthat (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Neverstopthat and thanks for writing that. I have made a few tweaks, hope you are OK with them, if not, it's a wiki. I'd suggest changing the first link as it currently goes to a dab page. Veneto might be the best place. If your sources cover it, the sorts of things that people often cover in articles about buildings include: Architectural style, construction material, size - number of rooms and or floors. Is it classified/protected under any heritage system? Major events such as War time experience there - I note it is close to the historic Austrian Venetian border, and in the part of Italy that was overrun by the Central Powers in WW1. You might also want to rename it to omit the (Bivai), unless you expect other articles to be written on other places called "Villa degli Azzoni Avogadro". Hope that helps, and thanks for asking.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  10:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ϣere Spiel  Chequers , I´ve changed the first link and added a source connected to classified heritage of the building. I wouldn´t omit the (Bivai) since the Degli Azzoni Avogadro family seems to own other Villas so Bivai specifies this particular building. I will also add a map of the alterations made by Count Rizzolino degli Azzoni Avogadro. In terms of adding more information about the history and architectural style I believe that images are presenting a clear image of how the building was and how it is now. What do you think ? Would that be enough ? Thanks --Neverstopthat (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Hi Ϣere Spiel  Chequers , I have added Section architecture and changed internallinks as you were suggesting. Unfortunately couldn ´t add the map of the alternations. Do you think the article is ready now to be reviewed ? Many thanks --Neverstopthat (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Bob Marshall-Andrews
We have a over diligent ip- and education seems to have failed, would you like to cast your eye over this article, I have reverted twice and suggested what he needs to do make an acceptable change.ClemRutter (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Clem, good to hear from you, would you mind getting another tame admin on that one? I'll explain why at the next London Meetup - are you coming on Sunday?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well said
Thank you for this edit WSC. I spent part of this afternoon trying to dredge up from my memory which article it was that brought about the "reliable sourcing" policy and was coming up empty. Your post took care of that gap :-) I am always appreciative of your work here at the 'pedia - many thanks and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marnette, and a lovely week to you too. We are in strange times with a multi front mess from the WMF this time. I have had dealings with the WMF in the past, at best they will take an idea, run with it but never acknowledge the volunteer whose idea it was. At worst they hare off in the wrong direction, ignore any objections from the volunteers but do a Uturn once the flak starts to come from outside the community. A case in point, many years ago I noticed a Wikimedia handout that listed "ten things you didn't know about Wikipedia" or something similar. One of the points was "be nice to vandals, 30% of our top editors started as vandals". Now it didn't take me a whole second to know that this was an implausible and provocative claim that needed careful checking. It didn't take me much longer to track down that someone had combined the stats that 30% of our editors with the thousand highest edit counts had been blocked at some point with the stat that almost all blocks are for vandalism. Someone who didn't have such a prejudice against the volunteers here would have looked a little further and would have come up with some interesting stat such as accidents happen, and if you are one of our thousand most active editors the chance of you having been accidentally blocked approaches 25%, probably by your own mistake. Working out the error was trivial, convincing the WMF of the error took three of us 6 months using diplomatic and soft spoken methods. My conclusion was that when the WMF goes careering off in the wrong direction you should go straight for the loudest and heaviest tools that you have, and much as I hate the idea of using badsites, remember that they pay far more attention to ridicule from outside the community than they do to measured criticism from mere volunteers.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oof that mixing of the numbers to come up with the "vandals/top editors" stat is a face palm moment. Thanks for taking the time to fill me in on how the WMF has operated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for an entertaining edit summary
correcting "wok" to "work" Quale (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Last time I played chess I lost to a six year old, mind you his brother competes internationally.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Guest book formatting
Hi, I'm Clovermoss. I signed your guest book recently and noticed that I am listed as number 2 in a bulleted list that is much larger than that. I'm not sure how you would fix it, but I'm guessing it has to do with how the page is formatted. Anyways, I thought I would mention it here in case you were not already aware and would like to fix it. Clovermoss (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Clovermoss. Good spot, I have fixed that. The formatting relies on each comment starting with # and not having any line breaks. You don't seem to have a guestbook yourself yet, any reason why not? Re the typo fixing, nowadays i use two tools, wp:AWB and one that has been written for me and is suitable for instances where there are lots of false positives so I can set safe phrases and safe pages in an easier and more effective way than AWB.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had the autowikibrowser right for awhile. I use it for adding short descriptions to categories of articles, but I haven't done anything else with it yet. I can't try anything new with it until I get a new computer charger (I've been editing on mobile but mostly on desktop view the past month). As for the guest book, I'm not really sure why I haven't started one yet. Clovermoss (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My one experience of editing Wikipedia with a smartphone was a bit of a disaster, and I rarely try even with a tablet. I admire anyone who can do anything here via mobile. this is a tool that was written for me for finding easily confused words, staring, posses, preform and the like I used it to secularise loads of football mangers calvary regiments and prime minsters, feel free to have a look, I have never tested it from a mobile device. Re the guestbook, I'd be happy to set one up for you if you want.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll keep the link, but I don't plan on doing any automated editing (if it's even possible) while I'm on mobile, as I'm way more likely to add typos myself or otherwise mess up. Have you read User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing? I'm not sure if I would write entire articles on my phone, but it's interesting to learn about how has. As for the guestbook, my current understanding is that's it would just be a subpage of my user talk page? If so, I can manage that. Clovermoss (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mine is a subpage of my userpage, I think that seems to be the convention, especially if you want yours listed at  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, done! It was nice to talk to you. Have a good day/afternoon/night (depending on your applicable timezone). Clovermoss (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Typo?
At I am having trouble understanding what "a reason that has to remain secret is at best an own goal" means. Was this a typo? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Guy, no, not a typo. When I said "if the intent of the WMF is to change behaviour on EN wiki then punishing someone for a reason that has to remain secret is at best an own goal." Part of my thinking was that I believe that the WMF do want to change behaviour on EN wiki to  make it a more civil, more congenial place. I have given them examples of how I believe that could be done, for example by improving the software so that more edit conflicts are resolved without biting people by losing their edits; or by introducing account level page protection so that edit warrers can be dealt with without blocking them. They have actually picked up on the latter idea, but rather missed the point by still using the word block. By blocking Fram for an undisclosed reason they to some extent legitimise fixed term punishments for undisclosed reasons. In my view if they or the community were to accept that behaviour as acceptable and to be emulated it would make this place less congenial and more toxic. But to clarify I may strike change and replace with improve.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above, but I still have no idea what an "own goal" is. A goal of their own ,and not somebody else's? A goal that they take ownership of? (Stops) Wait a minute... maybe I should look it up on Wikipedia and Wictionary. Yup. Own goal. A phrase that I was completely unaware of, because I never pay any attention to any sports other than Sumo and Chess -- and the Sumo is only because so many of my Japanese coworkers are into it. I will assume that other people understood just fine. Never mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I consider myself one of the least sporty people I know, but I know certain phrases such as own goals, sticky wickets, googlies, stumped, offside and hit for six that may not be common parlance in North America. At least it isn't something that means the opposite on different sides of the pond - I do try to avoid suggesting that we table something as that would be a recipe for confusion.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Note
The workshop page at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Workshop is closed. This is mentioned at the top of the page and in the edit notice, and the page is fully protected. You may make comments on the talk page, but the workshop itself should not be edited. – bradv  🍁  21:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I second this. We need our good editors and admins. Please don't edit through protection for this. You can still post on the talk page and you will be able to discuss the proposed decision when it's posted. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * No problem, especially as you reverted yourself the same minute.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Improving response to edit warring
Based on your submitted process improvement idea, I've started a discussion to brainstorm more specific details. If you'd like to take the lead on shepherding the discussion, I would be happy to pass the reins over to you. Please do invite anyone else to participate who you think may be able to contribute productively. Thanks very much! isaacl (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom comment
Hi WereSpielChequers, I hope all is well. I hope you don't mind, bit I've moved your comment into its own section. We're all supposed to have our own bit for comments (aside from the Arbs, who can reply in each person's section). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks SchroCat, I see the logic in that. But I'd suggest that any wikiproject or part of the wiki with its own non standard talkpage rules might consider an edit notice rather than just a comment at the very top of the page.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsigned RfA comment
Hi, I've taken the liberty of signing a comment you left in the current RfA. I imagine that this is entirely OK with you, but am leaving a note here for transparency given the sensitivities around voting in RfAs and in case I messed up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick,fixed  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Typo team barnstar

 * Thanks Clovermoss, much appreciated  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello
I got a chance to reply to a comment of yours (RfA), and grabbed at it. It's been a long long time since we chatted - so I just wanted to say hey. "Hey". Hope you and yours are doing well, and it's good to see you're still around. All my best, and Cheers. — Ched (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ched, good to hear from you, yes I'm still here. But also making time to revive some old hobbies and try out a new one in case the WMF goes a little more rogue than it already has.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

British Museum altar
Hi. I wanted to express my gratitude for your answering my year old request on John's talk for a photograph of the boxwood altar. See, and am now able to put together Portable altar (WB.232) (it would have been fairly miserable without your pic).. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Those treasures aren't from one of my favourite periods of history or in many case to my taste - though I'm warming to them, especially the early nineteenth century fakes. I'm more interested in these two. But I'm glad John has dragged me into this whole Waddesdon thing, and we still hope to have an event there at some point. As for Room 2A, I hope to get back there before Christmas, and maybe take the Lyte Jewel again, but with a steadier hand. Do you have anything else in that room on your wishlist?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First up, my apologies for not talking to you when we were in shared company in 2016; I was a bit shy and latched onto Cass, Tim and John; not sure if you remember the occasion, but it was my only meet up. Though my better half tells me that she did convey how clever your user name is, especially as you have been so helpful with copy-editing these last fifteen odd years; we both see you around quite a bit. Second, Trialeti silver cup, is ...wow. Re if you have time, WB.236, a prayer nut, is something I would like to do an article on. Txs. Ceoil  (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No apologies needed, as I remember it, it wasn't a venue where you could easily circulate. I like the London meetups in part because one can circulate easily. John is also a regular, though the next time I can make it is likely to be next February. Perhaps you'd like to join us some time? I'd clean forgotten that Trialeti Chalice has been up since 2014. I must expand it some time, in particular it lacks anything about construction technique, though with that age one suspects beaten native silver, if not it was at the dawn of silver smelting. I'm hoping at some point it will be spectroscopically assayed, with objects that old there is a very good chance that this could link them directly to the source of the metal. But the real contrast with WB 232 is with the symbolism, having the object gives us some images from three dozen centuries ago, but working out what they mean, even identifying the culture, is far more challenging. I will try for WB. 236 when I'm next there. For obvious reasons I can't use flash in that room, and the light levels vary, and fall off of course when I zoom into such small objects. But one can but try. It is certainly an exquisite piece, orders of magnitude more delicate than any wood carving of mine.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have taken the liberty of uploading on commons two crops from your capture of wb.232, where the resolution was particularly high, hope you don't mind. It has to be said, these objects are notoriously difficult to photograph, fortunately, you achieved admirable captures of significant passages. Am hoping to finish an update of the article later today, with the crops included if thats ok. The Trialeti Chalice as an object is very impressive, though as you say the the article could do with some work, most obviously the technique...and such small pics! I would love to attend some later meet up; I have good impressions of most other Wikipedians, the day to day strifes apart. Ceoil  (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oooh, thanks for that. This newish camera of mine is better and more idiot proof than I thought, though some of the other images in that session were really rubbish. I hope to try again with the Trialeti chalice and my current camera in the next few months, though part of the problem there is light levels and they are really low - lower than in Room 2A! One of the things about meetups is that some of the most acerbic individuals online are either very well behaved in person, or they don't come to meetups. I look forward to buying you a pint some time.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Have made liberal use of your more recent photographs at Prayer nut. Ceoil  (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

SHISHIR DUA
Hi guy, What's up I've seen you decently editing Wikipedia and I therefore place my earnest request to nominate me as an admin.

If you do this it would be a great favour to me.

Thanks a million

Regards

SHISHIR DUA
 * Hi SHISHIR DUA and welcome to my talkpage. I have nominated a number of candidates in the past, and might well be willing to nominate you if and when you are ready. Can I suggest you read User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria and email me a draft of your answers to the first three questions if and when you think you meet the criteria there. Cheers  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-free tags
I have some non-free license tags in my user space (ex: User:Funplussmart/sandbox/Cc-by-nc-4.0) because I wondered if we should have these tags on files that we host (under fair use or are multi-licensed) that are available under these licenses. You think this is a good idea? funplussmart (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Funplussmart, this sounds like a discussion for Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights, or perhaps even the Strategy initiative on Meta. I know there were some proposals there in an earlier phase that would have included NC, hopefully they've now been dropped or made workable.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Order of Vittorio Veneto
Hello, I noticed that you wrote in that page so I guess that you might be interested to that topic: the order is not actually "abolished" but "abeyant" because it was re-established in 2010 after its formal abolition in 2008. I don't know the reason why it was revived, since there's no longer anyone alive who either holds it or can be awarded it. Anyway in the Italian article there's the reference for both abolition and re-establishment, published on our Republic's Official Gazette -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's an interesting one. My only involvement had been a typo fix, but if this is a service award - serving 6 months in which both Italy and Austro-Hungary fought for years, then we should be careful to only list members with articles. It would however be good to have figures on numbers eligible and numbers claimed. I'm particularly intrigued at the idea that people on both sides qualified for the medal, and wonder how many South Tyrol and Trieste residents claimed the award for fighting against Italy.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To give you an example there was Camillo Ruggera, who, in spite of being ethnically Italian (his first language was Italian indeed) nonetheless fought for the Austrian-Hungarian side [not that he was a traitor, he was an Austrian-Hungarian national, like for example Damiano Chiesa and Nazario Sauro who chose Italy and for this reason were hanged for traison by the imperial government] and even after the Armistice of Villa Giusti he remained Austrian and eventually German... -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 16:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Black Cat, that I think would make for an interesting addition to that article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Thanks Kudpung. I would like to take you up on that, if I do make it to Bangkok I'd even drink a cold beer - I'd long assumed that Thailand was one of those benighted realms where beer is customarily served cold rather than cool. Can't speak for WMUK though, that phase of my life feels like a long long time ago, but it would be nice if someone from the London Meetup crowd made it to Bangkok, I'm pretty sure none of us were in Cape Town.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get back to the UK much these days. The last time was when my Dad passed away at 96 four years ago. I have fond memories of helping out at Wikimania London for WMUK, and it would be nice to get people like you and a few of the others together to try and right great wrong over a beer or two. If you're in Weatherspoons any time soon, do put in a word. Perhaps I could do something for WMUK in Bangkok as I'm here anyways. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはWereSpielChequersたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)