User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


PS: I note that that German town article was only ONE LINE LONG!!! -but, purely coincidentally, has now been nicely expanded to at least Stub-class in the last few hours. A CSD nomination certainly seems to focus the mind around here Shade.png Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Mohammad Jamshidi[edit]

Cheers! -although it might be worth actually making this a decent article rather than.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Please remain civil with your edits and edit summaries. This edit summary was not called for. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You do your job properly and then it won't be called for :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
PS I notice that your only interest in the article is tags. So never EVER call yourself an Editor here again. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from threatening me and justify your conduct in not referencing that article. You may have noticed that the reason the PROD template was still there was because I f'ed to do anything about it- HAVING BY THEN ADDED FOURTEEN REFERENCES AND JUSTIFIED THE ARTICLE'S EXISTENCE HERE. Something you singularly failed to do. Is that a personal attack? Or is that simply a SUMMARY OF YOUR INACTION. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW I note your (mis)use of the word 'troll': THAT is a personal attack. The bottom line here is that, having done something wrong, and get called out over it, you attack me instead. Pretty obvious. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper delete[edit]

Hello, Im Adepane, have you ever come to Medan? Medan have many news papers, and the big one is that link your delete, I'm not promoted, but you attack me, Please take a look Medan City, Come here, and you will know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adepane (talkcontribs) 19:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmmmm... street noodles Lightbulb.png Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

AN/I thread about Orestes1984[edit]

Just a quick not to let you know I mentioned you in passing on this thread. - Nick Thorne talk 22:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I think that was a good post.

Maybe you misunderstood[edit]

I see you posted a red link on my page. I am assuming you are talking about the user who has again filed something against me. As the comments relate to the issue of edit warring, they are certainly not an attack. They are critical information about the former Ip now called Shwan God. The user has a TRACK RECORD of edit warring not only against me but against all the editors who contribute to Moors. even reverting adminsTake time to review the remarks, and I will listen to your advice on keeping cool. --Inayity (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Henry VI, Berwick, Warkworth and Battle of Northampton
James Harrington (Yorkist knight) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Affinity, Hiatus and Battle of Northampton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland[edit]

The article Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fortuna, just checking all's okay with the review. Do you need some more time to address the issues? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder that there were only a tiny of couple of changes left to make, and it should be good to pass then. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article[edit]

I know it became a bit frustrationg with all the attack going on this page but maybe you can find a solution to this. I have already made my case to neutral point of view noticeboard 10 days ago ( and waiting a response. As I stated there this article lacks a neutral point of view and that is why some editors are attacking the article, I know their way is not the right way to do things and as you can see from here I am trying to make things right. Please, help me about this.Rivaner (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You can also check my first edit's case here: (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this is not what I am doing. For example just look at the articles last paragraph I have stated some names who were involved with this "scandal" from day 1 and that is the first time their names are mentinoted. That is why I am telling you this article lacks neutral point of view.Rivaner (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


I see. Thanks for your time then.Rivaner (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


Well, back to patiently waiting then :)Rivaner (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

cos of them IPs, you mean? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What is up with them? Do you think it has something do with LardoBalsamico's semi-protection request for the article denied on the grounds that both me and him are autoconfirmed users and also the editor or admin stated that there is not enough vandalism to make it fully protected. Is it just a coincidience or have I read to many conspiricay theories these days? :)Rivaner (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "2011 Turkish sports corruption article". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your question at DRN[edit]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article is what you're looking for, I think. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciateed, thanks. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page revert[edit]

Hi, I am not going to edit war over your this edit but I believe talk page posters do have the right to redact their own comment if it is unreplied. Also I am unsure if you were trying to undo my redaction why you deleted the content of my this edit. Solomon7968 09:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Is {{shortcut|WP:NOBAN}} a reply to me? I haven't reverted any banned editor, I reverted myself! Solomon7968 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
lol Solomon, I have no idea why they call it "WP:NOBAN", as it doesn't even mention bans!!! I just meant the bit about talk pages Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I also didn't opened the link and guessed 9wrongly) the meaning. But I am still not sure why you reverted my edit, Paul may do so but you may not. Solomon7968 10:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Because: "it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages" Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you going to revert or not? Solomon7968 10:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* Are we still talking about this? I think it's pretty clear that I will not; and, as per etiquette, neither should you. Let him deal with his own Talkpage and let's all get on with something useful. Ta ta. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay I have reverted you. Also please refrain from making this type of edits on any random editor's talk page in future. Solomon7968 10:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I would advise you against such behaviour. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The conversation then moved to Solomon7968's Talkpage, and continued in a similar vein. Here it will be recorded for posterity.

Hmm, well, I would not lose any sleep over this one. I can't really see an issue. I would try to forget about it if I were you. (Let's face it, there are far worse things happening around the place.) Let me know if you notice any other strange activity and I'll also keep an eye out. Deb (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, although would not want my TP treated in such a fashion, but as you say. Probably merely OCD anyway. BTW- just to let you know? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ‎

Possible Rfc[edit]

See my latest addition to User talk:PrivateWiddle. I'm assuming you would support this course of action if it becomes necessary? Deb (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done That is to say, of course. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at 3941e402's talk page.

Hmm.. what you mean?[edit]

Mad In India had no templates, topic is quiet notable. OccultZone (Talk) 08:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If it had no templates- how would you know there is a question of notability.... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
Template? "Template:Unrefenced"? Or speedy deletion. Speedy deletion, yes, but editor included the requirement of reliable sources. There are few. OccultZone (Talk) 09:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It was an XfD template which should not be removed until the discussion is resolved at AfD. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
AFD? It was WP:PROD, read "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag." OccultZone (Talk) 10:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Rfc on PrivateWiddle[edit]

Is now posted here and requires your certification: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle Deb (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A pointless nightmare[edit]

Your monumental waste of everyone's time at BeerXML is now concluded - Talk:BeerXML#Status_Resolved.

And if you are in any doubt of what the community think of your unpleasant tactics - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PrivateWiddle#Views.

Other users should not back down in the face of the intimidation and threats that this user and their friend Deb will adopt if you stand up to their arbitrary attacks. BeerXML Devils In Skirts! (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beheaded (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to University Challenge, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 930913(Congratulate) 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Blooming templates. Just trying to put that stuff about context.... In context! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland[edit]

The article Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IP Address conflict[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your initial review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IP Address conflict. I made a bunch of changes to it and I'd like your opinion on them. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC) shuddup


Good to see you back. Deb (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. :-) Deb (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Renata Przemyk[edit]

there is no copyright violation because mtv copied it form wiki, it's mentioned on their page, primary source for my edits is and OLiS, everything is correct, so stop undo my edits (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

directly on this page its wirrten source wiki, are you serious ? (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
as of no responce from you i did notify administrator on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Anna Maria Jopek[edit]

again i did notify Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to enjoy it there so much-! Did you 'again' go to Talk? You write plenty, but converse less. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
agian whats your problem ? (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You're doing good work on the page- but remember the addition of sources is not enough- they must conform to WP:RS in order to prove notability. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
sources i did used OLiS, ZPAV,, Universal Music Poland, Itunes, Vimeo official pages (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That is unfortunate. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
why ? because i did used Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry as sources of certifications ?, and that in your opinion is not a good source, tell me then what source should i use, do i have to mention that all certificates from poland on Wiki have the same sources as i provided in AMJ article (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
iTunes....? PLEASE TAKE THIS TO THE TALK PAGE AS I REQUESTED LAST TIME. K'you! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
all articles use Itunes as source for digital download format, release dates are sourced with, you cant or you won't answer my question, tell me what source i need to use for certification, as i understand you have problem with Itunes, so i can remove those links, then everything will be fine as i presume ? (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir John Conyers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry VII and Hornby Castle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Service award[edit]

Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! In recognition of your efforts, I've placed the Apprentice Editor service award on your user page. Feel free to update your award level as you meet the edit count and registered time requirements. Thanks and keep up your good work! --Drm310 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much Drm, that's cute. No probs, mein plesh! Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for posting on my IP’s talk page. Please visit it and view my reply to what you posted on it. Regards, (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already seen that. HERE, PLEASE START A NEW SECTION FOR A NEW SUBJECT.. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Denver crime family prod[edit]

Before I consider removing this prod, may I inquire about the basis for your concern that this might be a hoax? This family is mentioned in a number of books: [1] [2] [3]. Some news articles from HighBeam: [4][5][6][7]. Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough! But: 'Finishing Sam'? I did a search of various charcacters mentioned and came up with 0- except an equally suspicious website on a professor who has written on them and somehow tied them into an arc with the Third Reich! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard III article[edit]

Dear Fortuna, I would like to thank you for recently improving on the a.m. article by adding more precise citations than the ones I was able to provide when I contributed with the references on e.g. the allegations on the validity of RIII's marriage, etc. However, I feel you have unproperly taken the liberty of deleting as "trivial" a short contribution I added today on his childhood, one that was duly supported with a VERY precise quotation from a modern historian. It was 1 sentence backed up by the corresponding citation that did not make the article excessively long, or much longer than it already is, yet imho made it richer for users in the perspective of documented medieval habits regarding marriage alliances among members of the noble class and the assumption was no more speculation than Ross' citation with the generally accepted idea that Richard of Gloucester (later King Richard III) and Anne Neville first met at Middleham. I will add that sentence again as soon as I can, and I would like to ask you to restrain from deleting it again because I think it would make the users the poorer with some interesting, even if not vital, information on medieval lifestyle. Thank you for your kind understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talkcontribs) 19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't thank me too soon. Responded on your TP. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard III article.[edit]

  • If you insist on re-inserting that assumption, then I must advise you that I will probably insert WELL sourced material to suggest he spent hardly any time at Middleham at all as a youth. I'm not sure how that would tie in with your romanticisms!!! What Charles Ross, historian, is one thing; what Amy Licence, novelist, says, quite another.
  • Also, the article is in the middle of a serious- and major- overhaul in an attempt to reach GA status; it would be greatly appreciated if, instead of inserting new material at this curent juncture, you worked off the list (as given by the Reviewer on the article's TP) and helped improve the article first.
  • Please sign any statements you feel you must make with four tildes (~~~~) to identify yourself.

However most of your edits were tolerable- certainly we prefer Ross to Licence!!! Face-wink.svg Cheers, and happy editing here.

Fortuna, I am identifying myself as much as you are, and I do not presume to be Imperatrix Mundi, nor to own any article on Wiki, while given your history of debates on your talk page you do have a tendency to be rude and overreact to other editors that speaks of yourself more than of the other editors.

Marriage alliances have little to do with romanticism: the Kingmaker was wed to Anne de Beauchamp as a child, Elizabeth of York was betrothed to George. Neville when she was about 5 and she was about 10 when she was included in the treaty of Picquigny as the would-be wife of the French Dauphin.

I personally find Licence (and her editor) to be rather clumsy in her work, in her bio on Anne Neville she named Margaret Beaufort's 3rd (or 4th, according to views) husband alternatively Thomas and William as if husband and brother-in-law were interchangeable, but that does not mean all her work is plain rubbish and I personally found that pièce of information rather interesting both in the general context and in the specific context of a Royal family with very little exchange of DNA from outside contributors, which probably made Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville the more bizzarre to the eyes of his family.

Licence's speculation is not bad, nor is David Baldwin's speculation that 1465 marked the beginning of Richard's knighthood training with the Kingmaker, rather than the end as Kendall suggests. In this view, a marriage prospect to appeace the Earl and the possible development of a romantic attachment would make even more sense, regardless of how much time Richard actually spent at arm's reach from the prospected bride. However, I think both youths' feelings, if any, were irrelevant at this stage, as it's proven by Anne's later marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Should we maybe add Baldwin's arguments too? He seems to have derived them from newly discovered contemporary records, something that neither Ross nor Kendall were able to analyse just as they did not have access to the findings of his mortal remains and could only speculate on his looks and the hunchback myth, so it looks like Richard III is a work in progress in a much broader sense than a Wiki article.

I rarely edit on Wiki, when I do I try to add reasonable information from reliable sources and never look down on other editors. Hope we can share this work base.

This sounds interesting - I'm in two minds about her (but haven't read the book). FI, you are starting to remind me of another wikipedian I used to know. Maybe I am just a bit dense. Deb (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Be nice to Isananni now. I thought you had turned over a new leaf. :-) Deb (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I have no idea what you mean. BUT- note that I left discussion with that particular editor before I hit 3RR; safe in the knowledge that the edits would be dealt with by more experienced editors. Which I think suggests a certain growing maturity... ;) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sigh - one can only hope... :-) Deb (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Fortuna, I do not know who your peer reviewer is, sounds like a competent University lecturer, but he/she may not have the same feel for communication on the web (needing to be concise) as he/she has for the topic, which I am sure he/she masters far better than me: ("described by Dr. Johnson as", etc.) makes the sentence heavy to follow and you have the citation sourcing the statement. There is no love lost between us, but before discarding my suggestions, can you please at least ask your peer reviewer his/her opinion on this alternate phrasing? Thank you Isananni (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you can do that. And please put new messages at the bottom of the page in the traditional fashion. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for again reverting vandalism to my user talk page. I find it odd that two or three IP users have appeared recently and started with vandalizing my pages for no apparent reason. I find it hard to believe this is random, although perhaps there is a small chance that is. I think they (if more than one person) must have edited under other IP numbers, or even user names, and have had vandalism reverted by me. In turn, that may have led to blocks but not directly by me since I am not an administrator. I suppose we just have to tolerate this sort of thing and get the vandals blocked if we are to continue to help keep Wikipedia free of the errors and vandalisms this type of person places on pages. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Salvador, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Taylor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate vandalism warning[edit]

You may want to consider removing your vandalism warning here as the edit wasn't vandalism at all. In your rush to revert you actually broke the template that DrKillmeoff had fixed in his edit, and then you templated them with an inappropriate and incorrect level 3 vandalism warning. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diana Rowden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2004; online edn, Jan 2014 [], accessed 6 Nov 2014]</ref> and [[Mentioned in Despatches]] and in France she was appointed a Chevalier de la [[Légion d'

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, not a copyvio. When I went to look at the linked site, your speedy tag had appeared on it. At the bottom of the page, it clearly acknowledged Wikipedia as a source. Mirrors like this are always a bit of a problem, but especially the ones that don't make the required acknowledgement. With older articles, it's possible go go into the history and see how the text changes over a period. Any sudden rewrite may be suspect, especially if the editor concerned has edited few other subjects. It's always a good idea to check the bottom of the 'source' page, though. If there's a date there that's before the appearance of the text here, it's usually clear cut. Copyvio can be a bit of a minefield at times. Peridon (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries- obviously didn't scroll, eh! Many thanks for your advice though. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The advantage of peer review[edit]

Apropos of my little sermon on my talk page, have a quick look at this peer review, which I have just closed, and see how much my draft was improved thanks to the comments from our colleagues. At GAN one is up against one editor's viewpoint, but at PR you get an invaluable range. I really would take King Richard there if I were you. Good luck! Tim riley talk 22:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Tim, we appreciate that. Done! Although I guess it will take a while (backlog?) but thanks for the advice. I'm sure he will be as comfortable at Peer Review as under a car park! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
I shall most certainly look in, and I daresay others who keep an eye on what I'm up to may do so too. Tim riley talk 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard III of England, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Annuity and Retainer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You thanked me?[edit]

Isananni (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Now that you're finally doing as you are told, it will probably happen again. And again. And- Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! That's a turn. I have some very strong doubts on the first paragraph of the Childhood section, it's too long and boring and it just does not flow imho, but am too tired now to rationally think about it. Once I have a draught for a compromise I will post it on the peer review page and see what the others say. By the way, there is another entry in the Childhood section that sounds "sticked" in place, I refer to the one about Richard losing interest in Middleham in adulthood. We both know how that entry came about, hope the misunderstanding has been cleared by my following entry. I did not remove your entry out of respect for a piece of information that was adequately backed up by referenced sources, but no matter how I try, it just does not sound right to me in the context. No tragedy, I suppose. Moreover, if I have to judge on my family's lifestyle, posterity should think my husband lost interest in his home and family since documents (credit cards statements, flight tickets, etc.) place him more ofter away from home (for work) than with his wife and children. Does that mean he cares less for us than he used to? Or how can we relate documental clues to such personal feelings as attachment, etc.? Had we possibly better leave this speculation? Just think about it. Talk soon. Isananni (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it will remain until the GA. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard III[edit]

Not interested in the latest developments? Deb (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Giving up masochism for Christmas Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Go Stuff Yourself[edit]

I haven't vandalized anything, unlike your fellow admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Rabbit Fire nuff said
Avono (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Chawinda. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Justice007 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

1 revert is not edit warring, check WP:EW carefully. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 18:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor is certainly grasping at straws. We will probably be accused of vandalism next, OZ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a dud warning. Just disregard. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

PS. This is just a notification, you do not need to respond or be defensive, although, you need to assume good faith. Unlike you assumed at Justice007's talkpage, two members of same wikiproject are not considered involved unless they have expressed an opinion in a dispute. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • FIM, it does not help you or me if you are to drop an AGF template to me when I have asked you for the same without being ever involved with you. See WP:DTTR. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Err helloooo. WP:DTTR applies to you too, if you chose to follow the policy. Arbcom put the sanction template on your TP- not on mine. Do you know why? It is because you have been editwarring- not me. So you duplicating the template merely looks like you are impersonating Arbcom. Do you know what happens to editors who do that? Any guesses? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not template you. The notification was an ARBCOM template to trigger edit filter for notification of discretionary sanctions so that you are aware of them. My own message to you right below that was hand written and with care to not turn it into something like this. Unless there's some WP:Competence issue with understanding the English of the notification, there's no impersonation involved and anyone can notify with or without misconduct. I don't know where did you bring my dispute into this while I'm talking about your completely unrelated message to justice so I'll not respond to that. Hope that helps. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course you won't; since the fact that you have been TOPIC BANNED does rather cut the high-ground from under your position ("battleground approach, personal attacks, misuse of sources, casting aspersions and edit warring "... NICE). All I will say about your behavior on my TP is that you are either a fantasist, or lack the very competence that you doubt in others. I am now formally requesting you to desist from editing this or any other pages associated with my account or face a further report. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the personal attack your comment before this (and in this section generally) is exactly the sort of thing that administrators look for when deciding whether or not someone needs to be sanctioned, as you have demonstrated a battleground attitude, personal attacks and casting aspersions. I strongly suggest that you remove the personal attack from your comment above this. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
What personal attack?Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
you are either a fantasist, or lack the very competence that you doubt in others is the personal attack Fortuna. Please retract it. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Fair enough, re. accusations of fantasticity; but I should point out that the editor had already cast doubt on my competence. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Éric Abidal - Overall[edit]

Hi there FIM, from Portugal,

if you notice the edit history, my edits (this IP is standard, so I'm pretty sure I am the only one in the world using it) in this footballer's article were neither inconstructive nor were they reverted, I have been reverting vandalism or akin like crazy in this article and others OK?

Since your message also contains a welcoming message and suggestions on creating an account, the following: thank you for the former. About the latter, I had an account for five years or so (and have been editing for eight overall), AlwaysLearning, but asked that it be destroyed after a sick run-in with a troll that wanted to vandalize articles only to find my stern opposition, this "person" then resorted to taunting and insulting and I, sick of it all, had my account vanished with the intention of leaving forever.

However, quickly found that I could not, maybe I'm "wiki-hooked" or something :) Happy holidays to you, alea jacta est -- (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I made an oops in blocking you[edit]

If you didn't already notice, I blocked you. However, I noticed my mistake and then unblocked you. The reason I was confuddled was the series of edits you made on Dusti's talk page. You removed my previous edit and restored an attack edit. I have a feeling you accidentally removed my edit. You shouldn't have restored the attack edit. There is no reason to leave filth on the page and the coward IP wouldn't respond to your question. But more importantly, it confuses admins like me... We aren't the smartest bunch and get confused easily. But, my third grade teacher says Im a improvement. :) Bgwhite (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)