User talk:LaughingVulcan

Maybe I'll get back to my Wikibreak soon. And now I ~~do!~~ don't but I guess I'll be satisfied with that.

Archives

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Precious

fishing

Thank you for quality contributions around fishing, including quality assessment, for vulcanic support, for a user page to make readers smile, for "keep in mind that this is simply a volunteer project", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, thank you very much. It does make me feel better, and is very appreciated. I'm still proceeding as above, and I hope you'll take it as a compliment that you're making it easier to leave - in the best sense of that... Easier to exercise a choice to not contribute anymore and that's my goal for the immediate future, because that is best for me. But thanks for reminding me I've had good contributions here, too, and at least somebody showed me how pings worked. ;) If I miss my goal, though, I'll look forward to seeing you here again. LaughingVulcan 12:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do what is best for you! Did you know that you are one of very few people to have "laugh" in their user name? We are way toooo seriuz, normally. I was on the verge of leaving a few times and know the feeling. I then made up my mind to not do my opponents that favour ;) (see red cat on my user page) - Some light music on your way, to wherever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Liked the Light Music very much and makes my day better since I feel like I've got to come back for a bit. Got it playing now on Youtube. Maybe next time I'll set en.wikipedia.org to route to 127.0.0.1 in my router. ;) Then again, feed me more music like that and I won't be able to stay away from my user page. LaughingVulcan 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see me in choir top of my talk, - plenty of music here, but not light, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1463 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back

Gotta see some folks about this stick they won't drop. LaughingVulcan 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LaughingVulcan: I think that the editor you are referring to in "goodbye blue sky" has left Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: It does appear that way. We'll see.^{[[1]] - the second quote, please} I learned the hard way that this place can be a very hard habit to break, and that's both good and bad. :) I was just writing something up that will almost certainly never see the light of day about my mixed feelings on it. I'll accept his and his compatriot's word (plus others testimony of it) that he's done good work here as well. I'm not happy about their leaving; I went to the very edge of there as well - it is not a nice place to be. I've been there before, in fact.

Anyway, he's right that Wikipedia needs editors, only all kinds of editors. But I wish I could wave a magic wand and get him to see exactly how his words form a picture that he is missing fundamental respect for any stranger he disagrees with. Just basic recognition that those who haven't earned his respect nevertheless deserve a measure of it, and that he could in fact be wrong about that which he feels most right about. For I fear that this is what damages Wikipedia far more than any single editor's contributions are worth, including mine. If Cassianto could first seek to understand before seeking to be understood, or even just be professional, I feel that thread would look so different and I suspect he and I would not have clashed at all. If he changes his mind and adjusted his behavior (a tall order, perhaps,) I'd be happy to see him come back. And maybe perspective will help both of them. We'll see.

Thank you very much for your opinions and starting the AN/I awhile back. For awhile it felt like I was nearly alone in my interpretation, and I hope for both his sake and mine I wasn't wrong in that. But because you, FourViolas, and others I won't name shared part of my understanding there and at AN/I and other places... I think my own faith in the Wikicommunity is restored. We'll see. :) Thank you. LaughingVulcan 13:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another chapter in the saga

Cassianto has been reported again by a different editor, and I assume that he's not actually leaving after all. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cassianto_Violating_Civility_Policy. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, jcc. I've been following it in the last couple of days. We'll see. He's also blanked his pages as of yesterday, again. So we'll see. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 10:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stick my nose in here after seeing you edited Cassianto's talk page referring to a quotation of something you said as a personal attack. That phrase was either ill-considered or plain rude. Having written it, own it; and do not grave-dance. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir:, you're welcome to, "stick your nose in." Unlike some people, I'm fine with discussing my behavior, and I'm fine with the dispute resolution process.

Cassianto taking that particular diff and using it the way he did: I apologized for that several places, even as I called out Cassianto's bad behaviors. I also did something I prefer to never to: I went back and took the word stupid out, just for him. Even though I never specifically referenced Cassianto with the word stupid, though I did call his attention to the fact he was tarring all readers who would want an infobox at Noel Coward with an idiot brush. But at any rate, he's not using the CURRENT state of the talk page when he wrote that comment, so I guess I could just instead go back and alter his talk page diff to the current state. (And by the way: Cassianto has been more than happy to go back and alter his words after he hits "save" instead of owning them, even though that may be speaking ill of the dead.) But now you tell me: Why should I not view his leaving that version up as a parting shot at me and as yet one more personal attack - not his first by a long shot? And why should I let a personal attack stand, last words or not?

I don't feel I'm grave dancing because I'm not the one taking words out of context and applying them incorrectly as an insult. I'm also not the one saying I'm leaving and then going back and then coming back and continuing to make edits - even to a talk page. I'll believe it is his grave when he actually stops making edits. I'm not really happy he's leaving because others will miss him and I'd rather have him here as a civil contributor, but I can't be sad he's gone.

Now I'm going off to work. When I return home I'll decide if I'm going to continue the edit process by discussing my change at his talk page per WP:BRD, the Essay Cassianto has loved to throw at other editors. And yes, that's a decision I'll make after I've cooled down a little. I'm not dead set on it for multiple reasons, but it is still a decision I will make. Mainly I have to decide whether to let his personal attack stand as part and parcel of his fading away (if he will.) BTW, you didn't notice he already reverted me? LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John:, I'm happy to do so. Perhaps in the future, when you apply templates, if you can give an idea of which edits you were referring to? I'm pretty sure I can guess in this case and I'll try to watch how I mark them in the future, regardless. Thanks, LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/cassianto was wiped

As you'll probably see from your watchlist, User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/cassianto was wiped by Cecil, and so I chose to restore it, but without going over 3RR, I can't do anymore- you'll have to restore it yourself. I've given a quick justification to him on his talk page. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be subject to a deletion discussion, maybe even a lengthy block. Jcc you are obv also gravedancing. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it will not be needed to be used, and is in the archive. In case we get another infoboxes case (sigh, who needs that?), diffs are important, not a user's view on a sequence of events. If you need the stuff, LaughingVulcan, keep it somewhere outside Wikipedia. I miss Cassianto (and others), again. How many more times?? Retirement is not death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have some nerve Gerda, on the one hand stoking the fires as here, and on the other claiming to "miss" those ground down. Some self awareness please. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @Jcc, Gerda Arendt, Ceoil, and LaughingVulcan: Everybody STOP now, please. Ceoil: That page, as I stated, is currently being held for potential evidence in a possible reopening of the Infoboxes Arbcom. Do not blank it again, because I guarantee you policy is on my side to keep it for the time being. I will reply here or on your talkpage shortly as to your other comments. jcc: Thank you for the restore, however, I can do another restore myself if I need to and I'm pretty sure I'm supported by policy in it. I'll also pull an offline copy and db-userreq it shortly for the sake of civility. Gerda: Thanks for the comments, At the moment Ceoil is pissed at me for what I said on C's and FIM's talkpages. I'd rather do my best to maintain civility than be forced into a battle that is unnecessary. Best to all of you, LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 19:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to @Caden: ping Caden to this above as well, please see jcc's line.

Last edit and then it is bedtime. The page has been db-userreq wiped by me for my own reasons and in the hope of getting everybody a little cooler just for the next day or too. And I'm out for a bit. Peace, all. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 04:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Your phrasing on my talk page tonight strongly implies that either you saw the emial sent to my wife, or have been back channeling and plotting with Gererda. There are coincidence, and coincidences, but dont take me for a fool. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Incorrect, sir. I highly recommend if you truly believe this that you take it to WP:ANI. However, to follow dispute resolution, I'll clarify with the following, via diffs.

I laid down a note on Gerda's talkpage. That note is completely unrelated to the email issue. For the record, while someone who stalks me off-wiki could get at least one valid email address for me.... My email is not turned on here. So you must have some major conspiracy theory going on to think Gerda and I can communicate back channel.
Gerda's talkpage is on my watchlist.
I'm cycling my watchlist trying to catch up from my short work crisis wikibreak.
I saw you had replied to Gerda and rechecked her talkpage. That reply has everything I know about this email, whatever it is.
You and I are currently in a conflict. We were before I got called suddenly into work for an emergency.
As part of that conflict: You 3RR'd a sandbox of mine. YOU 7RR'd IT ACCORDING TO RICHARD NORTON. Instead of fighting for my evidence, I FOLLOWED GERDA'S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD TAKE THAT EVIDENCE OFF WIKI. REREAD HER MESSAGE TO ME FOR WHAT IT SAYS, NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS.
Sorry for shouting that, but my read is Gerda was ON YOUR SIDE to have that material removed.
Gerda's words helped me to understand that I couldn't wait for my working crisis to be over. All I'll say about that work crisis is that a weekend system crash is an immediate EMERGENCY for me to handle. More important than anything Wikipedia. Yet I took time to agree with her - AND YOU - to get rid of that material before it became even more of a conflict with you POTENTIALLY BLOCKED for 3RR. While in said emergency. And I stuck up for you that you shouldn't be blocked even though I thought you should have been. Now, go find those diffs for yourself if you don't believe me. Or AN/I me so I'll have to do the work to prove all this. I've spent enough time explaining this to you.
Your message to Gerda, in concert right after my message to her, made me think that message may have had something to do with me. Whatev. (EDIT TO ADD: Actually, you specifically named me in that talk message, so reread it.)
So I replied to you not only hoping that Gerda is trying to help rather than hurt you (even though I'm totally whistling in the dark about that,) BUT ALSO that I'm wanting to bury the hatchet between us. And you don't want that yet.
So now I tell you officially, you don't buy this, believe it, want more satisfaction? Take it to the next step in Dispute Resolution. But I warn you, your free shot is now over. And the Truth Will Out, Sir. Good evening. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wont be taking this to an/i; I am too hurt and upset to drag those people into this. Its clear how you operate. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sir, then unless you're going to Arbcom me, I don't see we have anything left to discuss. Unless you're going to retract what you said above, which I'm still not sure isn't a threat of some sort.... But honestly, and I wish you'd believe it: I wish you the best of what you can be. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 01:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought do I have to take this to AN/I myself to request an interaction ban with you, or do you want to agree to one here. I don't know WTF this is and I don't care how you think I operate, though I will still try to be WP:CIVIL by asking you to stop communicating to me outside of AN/I or Arbcom. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On third thought, and going to ping a last time because I hope you'll read this. @Ceoil: and I reread your last one more time instead of going to bed as I maybe should.... You are too hurt and upset to drag AN/I into this. Yeah, sometimes when hurt and/or upset it's the wrong time to go AN/I on something. As long as two people are willing to talk, it is the wrong time to go AN/I. Now.... I suspect you have no idea how I "operate." Because as far as WP goes, it's all here. Look at my history. I operate here, for here. I don't do IRC for Wiki. I don't do emails for Wiki. I'm a member of NO cabal, because aside from Admins and other users I knew from eight years ago... I'm pretty much a loner Wikignome until Cassianto started firing shots at me (and I at him, sadly.) And believe me: Cassianto damaged me mightily, whether you want to believe that one or not. He did. And you know, I don't want to damage you the way he damaged me. I don't. I want the damage to STOP.

I had nothing to do with whatever that email was. If you have an issue with Gerda about it: My experience is that Gerda listens pretty darn well. Dunno. Your mileage may vary. She ain't the villain she's made out to be in my eyes. Just like Cassianto probably isn't the villain I'm making him out to be - but I have only the shots he fired at me in EVERY response he ever made to me. Over one word. Just one. Apparently.

My apology to you: In rereading what I wrote in the heat of the moment, I can see how I'd have misunderstood one thing that I wrote on your page. I said, "I hope she was trying to bring peace (and failed....)" I meant that I hope she was trying to bring peace to a tense situation. And I assume she failed. I did NOT mean I hope that she failed in a mission to bring peace to you. And again, I have no knowledge and don't want any about that email - I suggest you contact an Admin or one of the OTRS @wikipedia addresses about the contents of it. But please believe: I'm hoping Gerda tries to work for peace, even among perceived enemies. And I don't mean that I hoped she failed at making peace - just that I'm sure she did fail at making peace by your responses and tone.

Now. You're hurt. You're angry. Without spilling anything further about the email, if you'd care to reply to me to tell me what you're hurt and angry over... civilly (as in not insulting me,) I'll still listen for one more time. Because I'm going to assume a little good faith here and I'm assuming that as a human being, you're worth listening to once more. And PLEASE read what I said above and here slowly before you reply - take time to read, if you would PLEASE do me that honor even if you don't think I deserve it. You get at least one more time of me trying to listen to you because I'd rather see a productive Ceoil than a pissed off one. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 02:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The email is on my talk. It went to one person, nobody else knew about it. It didn't mention any user name, didn't mention even the page name in question, just the fact that I was worried about YOU, Ceoil, making 4 reverts. - Anyway, I won't do that again. - How many more misunderstandings?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both Vulcan and Gerda have prorated a number of falsehoods here, Gerard probably knows what they are. I have to say, even in my darkest hours I have never stooped to the level of encouraging troublemakers like this, to back me up; to hell with the consequences. Ceoil (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for returning to my page; I won't ping you again as I hope you'll pick up a reply via watchlist or revisiting. I am sorry you feel that way. I've stated nothing false to my knowledge and you've had nothing but truth from me since I first replied to you. (I concede that, of course, the truth is limited to that which I know/deduce.) There are a couple of things about your post I do not understand, specifically, "...to back me up; to hell with the consequences." I'm not sure if you're referring to me with that or not and I don't know if that matters or not. If you're thinking I'm lying about something and I'm sure I'm being honest.... again I don't know what can be done about that at this phase except ask for more information to try and understand why that difference exists. All I can do is sign this off by re-iterating WP:TINC in this instance and all the conversations I've ever had with Gerda are here on this talkpage or on her talkpage. And again, I'm glad you're still making edits and I hope you can put this behind you. Write me off as an asshole, or step this up to other appropriate forums, please, so that whatever you feel is "justice" can be done. However, feel free to continue to reply here. And finally, again I wish you the best. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 14:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you had to type all that, but what I said was "Gerda probably knows what they are". She is using you as an attack horse. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I don't think you're right about that, but I'd suppose under your theory I wouldn't believe you're right in any event. There's almost always a possibility about being wrong, as well. Except thinking that the Pleiades are beautiful - can't be wrong about that and they were one of the targets I saw this evening. I'll consider more in the morning, but for now it is 3 AM and time for bed before I'm slipping into the Twilight Zone. ;) Thanks for your latest. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 08:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the Pleiades. 3am on wiki is bad for the soul!...stop that! I have to say, even under pressure you seem sincere, so offering an olive branch. We'll agree to disagree, but not with each other. Onward. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you very much for your patience with me and continuation of communication, and I most sincerely apologize for my earlier words. Best, LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

Hi LaughingVulcan: Sorry to trouble you, but I could not help but notice your Star Trek-related username in a different talk page; and simply because I take you to be a fan of Star Trek, I would be curious of your thoughts on the notability of a Star Trek author for whom I just created a Wikipedia article -- which may be promptly destined for the trash pile. My first article attempt here at Wikipedia was indeed recommended for deletion within hours of its creation by a senior user named JzG who seems to me to be overly hostile and dismissive. Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also your good faith opinion that my subject is in no way deserving of an article on this site; I would feel much more comfortable with the justice of the pending deletion action. My proposed article may be seen here, assuming you visit the page soon enough ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Gurian Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again LaughingVulcan: Just a followup to express my thanks for your kindness in weighing in on the debate discussion in a good faith manner. I can "logically" see that I might have been in error about the notability of my article's subject; as far as the Wikipedia standards are concerned, since so many members here have advocated for the Delete route. This truly does surprise me (as I explained at length in a new entry at the bottom of the deletion debate page and shall not repeat here, lol). But I greatly appreciate your kindness and reluctance to immediately (or without sufficient civil discourse) classify my good faith writing effort as irrelevant garbage. Also, I truly had not considered that attempting to rally possibly sympathetic fellow TOS fans to a cause I clearly felt was deserving (and did justice to Trek fandom) would be frowned upon. As they say in Trek, Live Long & Prosper! Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tosresearcher: I look forward to reading your other entries about it. (Unfortunately, I'll be tied up most of tonight into tomorrow.) It was pretty obvious to me that when I encountered the article that you'd worked hard on it and on trying to source it. The Notability policy (and its various sub-specializations) can be hard to meet. And it can be hard to start a new article and get it past the patrol and deletion community without solid N references - I don't even know if I've ever started an article, most if not all of my article work is in improvements. It can also be hard to distinguish Trek authors who currently meet standards (Diane Duane, Judy and Gar Reeves-Stevens, Diane Carey, KRAD are a few I can think of off the top of my head...) from many others who are still growing in notability.

To hear your work binned with "Cruft" isn't easy either. The flip side is that those who work in new article patrol and AfD often get an earful on far more obviously deletable articles - I've used to work at AfD a lot, some years ago. And veterans can find it hard to remember what it was like to be new. I hope you don't take it too hard and you'll consider continuing to contribute to WP. You might want to check out Portal:Star Trek if you haven't yet - I'm not a participant there but many WikiProjects can always use new members to lend a hand / coordinate efforts for coverage. Last thing I'll mention... when you kick off new articles, it might be better to start them in your sandboxes in your userspace until you get their references up. Articles can't stay there forever - sandboxes aren't a way to make 'backdoor' entries and there are 'pedians who patrol userspaces for stuff like that. But I hope your next article makes it! Peace and long life, LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really like your edit

I like your edit of 12:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC). Please consider moving it out of its current subthread and into the thread above the subthreads. 176.11.117.198 (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
New Library Card Platform and Conference news
Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

Partner resource expansions
New search tool for finding TWL resources
#1lib1ref 2017
Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

#1lib1ref 2017
Wikipedia Library User Group
Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

New and expanded research accounts
Global branches update
Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

Library card
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

User Group update
Global branches update
- Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Precious

Back

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

Another chapter in the saga

September 2016

User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/cassianto was wiped

Email

Request for opinion

I really, really like your edit

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

Proposed deletion of File:Lv fish hook for userbox 2.PNG

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

Issue 38, January – April 2020

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

Precious anniversary

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

Books & Bytes – Issue 47