User talk:Serial Number 54129

Put Paid To Paid Editing

Use of the 'Rollback' feature on the English Wikipedia

Two Staffordshire Bull Terriers demonstrating what has been described as 'inherent colliagilty.'

An award for your incredible efforts

		Qaei's Award of Excellence
		I seem to see you around a lot when I am editing things, and you really do put the effort in! You are one of the editors that people can look up to. Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia! Qaei ☎ 20:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Qaei: well, thanks. I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this; I'm sure you know best :) Thanks again, and take care! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Neville family tree

The chart below shows, in abbreviated form, the family background of Richard Neville and his family connections with the houses of York and Lancaster. Dashed lines denote marriage and solid lines children. Anne Neville is shown with her two husbands, in order from right to left.

John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (1340–1399)

Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (c.1364–1425)

Joan Beaufort (c.1379–1440)

King Henry IV (1367–1413)

Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick (1382–1439) ···· Isabel Despenser (1400–1439)

Alice Montacute, 5th Countess of Salisbury (c.1406–1462)

Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury (1400–1460)

Cecily Neville (1415–1495) ···· Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (1411–1460)

King Henry V (1386–1422)

Anne Beauchamp, 16th Countess of Warwick (1426–1492)

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (1428–1471)

John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu (c.1431–1471)

Archbishop George Neville (1432–1476)

King Henry VI (1421–1471) ···· Margaret of Anjou (1430–1482)

Isabel Neville (1451–1476)

Anne Neville (1456–1485)

(1.) Edward, Prince of Wales (1453–1471)

King Edward IV (1442–1483)

Edmund, Earl of Rutland (1443–1460)

George, Duke of Clarence (1449–1478)

(2.) King Richard III (1452–1485)

User:Kopaloni/sandbox

@Kopaloni: Thanks for your email; in the interests of openness and transparency, it's better if conversations take place on talk pages rather than emails.

Now- your article was deleted by User:RickinBaltimore for being highly promotional. That meant that they considered that, after removing the material, what remained amounted to little more than advertising, and there was too little left to actually amount to an encyclopaedic article. You enquired about draftspace; the same rules apply there I'm afraid. Articles have to be neutrally presented, supported by independent sources, and by people who have no vested interest in the subject. So perhaps read WP:COI, firstly, and see what the deleting administrator suggests to you. Good luck though! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

my interaction with user 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

Hi Fortuna - the reason why i did not assume this user was acting in good faith was because they started using derogatory and insulting language: accusing me of falsifying articles, and the subject of the article as 'dubious' without giving proper reason for this.

I see from their talk page that I am not the first person they have abused in this way, with many people asking them to register an account and be accountable

I am not on wikipedia to be insulted and so if they continue, I will be reporting them to the appropriate people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paultnharris (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, and a resolute stand must be taken. We usually report issues such as this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, were a fresh set of eyes, etc., is availablle. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding your user page

How did you do the formatting on Articles created (located on your page) because that looks cool! I have tried doing something like that (User:TheSandDoctor/Published_Articles) but want to improve it visually. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yo, TheSandDoctor, I'm not very technical, and must've stole borrowed it from someone else ;) But I put

==Articles created==
;
<div style="height: 300px; overflow:auto; border: 1.5px solid #242424; width: 700px; background: transparent; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">
{{refbegin|2}}

(without the 'nowiki' bit of course!)- then list the articles (you see the 'refbegin2'- that creates two colums- you can change it. The more columns you want, the wider you will probably want to make the box wider- chage the 700px). Then at the botto under the articles, put

 {{refend}}
</div>

And that should do the job! Nice content creation, btw :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Update- @TheSandDoctor: I just tried it in preview on your AfC article section, it worked fine. Just one thing- you don't see the scroll bar until the box is full (if you really want to see it, reduce the height of the box to something lower than the length of your list, if you know what I mean. Good luck! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: thank you for the help and the update! I will work on it in a few minutes. Might I ask what the difference between {{ping|user}} and {{u|user}} is? Also, I replied on my talk page to your comment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• @TheSandDoctor: That's a good question; I don't really know. There's also {{yo|user}} for the gangstas amongst us ;) and I often use {{reply|user}} because, unlike the others, it automatically inserts '@' in front of the name, so it's good for direct replies. Maybe ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:VPT? They have experts hanging out there :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: ping also adds the @. The u template doesn't though. I will certainly ask around and thanks for the other templates to use for responses! :D Also, I just saw the comment regarding my content creation, thank you for the complement! :D

Question regarding my history articles

Hi there! Photographs of the historical people for which I am 'porting' articles over from the German wiki (via Madd7744) I cannot seem to get to work on the Engish wiki, do you have any idea as to how I might address/fix this? For now I am forced to just put links at the top of the article to the photos (not recommended, I realize but so far do not have much choice). Any help would be greatly appreciated.
P.S.
Thanks for 'liking' my formatting change on my talk page! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah looks good. Certainly an encouragement to write more articles eh! :)

I'm not sure I can really help with the images I'm afraid. That's something else for a resisent expert to look at (and preferebly one who can speak German). My immediate answer, Sand Doctor, would be to upload them to Commons and then back to herer, as usual.They won't work here on their own because they are being hosted on the de.wp itself. But problem: They tell us here that the licence the German Wiki uses might not be compatable with Commons. Unfortunately I can't find out exactly why... maybe it's on a special licence or something. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I've asked here, so watchlist that page for any advice they might have, in case I miss it. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thank you very much! I will look out for that page! Also, could you possibly help improve some of the articles that I have listed here User:TheSandDoctor/Published_Articles? Any help would be greatly appreciated. :D If not that is fine and I completely understand. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I thikn we edit in far too different areas, I'm afraid- sorry. But the door's always open for any advice, help, you know that. "Happy Editing!" as we say :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No problem! What sort of editing do you normally do? Also, please don't forget to tag me in responses or I won't see it (found this by fluke).

Behaviour On AFD

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Can you please follow the due process and guidelines of WP:DISCUSSAFD which is directly aimed at AFD Discussions and stop directing me to WP:TPO which concerns itself with Talkpages. You are to start new comments with a * symbol and indent replies, if you are adding a sentence to your old statements, you go under your old statements and re-continue. Please behave according to wiki polices as anymore of un-constructive edits may land you a block. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't make unwarranted threats, Celestina007. There's no basis for it. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Celestina007: You are rather new here, so I will not take your aspersion any further; but, be mindful, you are not to refactor other editors' talk page comments under almost any circumstances, which includes discussion pages; and those where you should, do not apply.

May I suggest, User:Celestina007, that you are taking the whole issue rather personally? You appear to have a particular grudge against this page and / or editor, and I do not see why that should be the case. Although, going by your original statement, perhaps you would be better off here; I suggest you do so. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 21:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I do not know of any grudge that you speak of @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: and my time on Wikipedia is not what is important, what is, is the knowledge of its polices, Wikipedia polices and guidelines are my backing, don't say what you "think is right" rather as suggested by Wikipedia show me a policy backing your statements on contributing to an AFD, as I have done by backing all statements directed at you with verifiable polices according to WP:DISCUSSAFD it states clearly that you must use * for a new comment and indent when replying to a particular user, you didn't follow this guidelines on the AFD Discussion, I corrected you and your defense herein is accusing me of having a Personal issue with Bijay Ketan Swain who's user page was deleted by an administrator two days after he joined Wikipedia, please, so in what capacity would i have a grudge with the aforementioned editor?? I mean Why would I bare a grudge?? What would be the motive??? Dont you see my history button?? I Work tediously trying all I know to save articles from deletions but when a lie is published in Wikipedia, would I then still try and save it? Of course not, I'm passionate about Wikipedia and her quality.

Assuming good faith is another policy preached by Wikipedia of which you should know about, how come you aren't exhibiting this quality? It is not an embarrassment if a new editor corrects a senior one. And you know I'm correct, please just follow Wikipedia guidelines that's all I ask. Let us leave this small talk and petty issue. I wish you well sir.Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Celestina007: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's indent was fine. Knock off the lecturing and unwarranted threats and do something productive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: follow my history button, I have been doing nothing but upgrading articles, creating new articles, and reporting articles which fail Wikipedia policies. What isn't productive about that? you tell me. And mentioning to a user that you may report him/her is not a threat , with all due respect it is a Wikipedia process m, I find your statement very insulting the gap in knowledge is expanding as the days go by an giving unsolicited advice isn't really closening up this gap, so yeah, Take your own advice and make do with the plenty extra time in your hands.Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, March 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is that this isn't the first time you have badly and incorrectly responded to someone editing perfectly normally. User_talk:Adam9007#Cease_and_desist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: And even yesterday, here. Their edits are generally satisfactory- but there does seem to be an emerging pattern of deafaulting to 'attack' mode in the face of the mildest opposition. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha!

Thanks for the laugh: [1]. I love starting my day out with humor! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You fill your boots. But be mindful. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

People don't have better things to do with their time than to go tattle on someone who calls a spade a spade (and it's really not a big deal or a personal attack to do so)? Pshaw. Silliness. Apparently, snowflake behavior extends to Wikipedia (wait... maybe it always has?) ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering I am clearly here not to make friends (I've equally clearly done bloody bad job if that had been the plan), I naturally find it offensive to be cast in the role of sycophant within someone's 'fanclub,' which could be seen as not only impugning my motives but also insinuating that I have no mind of my own.

I'm 43. If there's a snowflake generation, it must melt before I walk in the room. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Little user surely here to make friends with Bishzilla! Hello little Winkelvi also! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

Well. If the choice is that, or getting toasted and chewed up like a frizzled chipolata... — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I hear ya. Bishzilla, that's a creative username :D Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi :D I agree, Bishzilla is scary. Let's all be friends to avoid their wrath, okay? :D

Polish Legion of American Veterans

Hi, you moved Polish Legion of American Veterans→User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi/Polish Legion of American Veterans to your userspace with edit summary: in order to delete. That kind of misuse of CSD U1 criteria is not allowed and I fail to see any other speedy deletion criteria applying here, so I have restored the redirect back into article space. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 13:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that jni. I asked for {{admin-help}} on Draft talk:Polish Legion of American Veterans in order to resolve that issue. I am unable to move the draft into mainspace under that title because the title already exists asa redirect. So, I thought, move the redirect to mine- or any other- space to change the title, and then be able to move the draft into that title. But with no joy. But that's why that thing was in my userspace: it is a now-useless redirect, because it is preventing a page being created. Thanks for your help with this :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize there was a draft in preparation or active admin-help request. I have now moved the draft over the redirect. Hope this helps, jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 14:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's great. No problems. Thing is, here's another one: Draft:Ray Campbell, where 'Ray Campbell' is currently a redirect to Blue Ridge Hockey Conference. Can you help with that jni, please? Thanks again! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

jni Thanks for both of them. Nnr. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Editing of User talk:31.51.108.231

Feel free to match the editing habits of the IP editor above to IP in the SPI investigation opened against 31.51.108.231, as well as User:Iniced. I, again, stand by my statement that phrases such as; "can I have your details"; "hi dick ass comer can I have your details"; and these[2][3] hardly constitute just "unsavory language". More like trolling, in which case it is safe to WP:DENY. Why don't we ask User:Favonian, whom reverted the editor[4][5] per WP:SOCK, as well as being harassed by the IP editor.[6][7][8]. All of which happened before you claim "unsavory language was first used." I stand by my point that good faith need not be assumed in that situation as well. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So you goodnight you would do a viable impression of trolling this page instead? Thanks for that. I am not discussing it further with you, since you continuously and disingenuously misrepresent my thought. I never said they weren't trolling; I never disputed they had previous background. But for the life of me I am still waiting for you to acknowledge, finally, that the only person who cannot be blocked for edit warring on a talk page is the person to whom the page "belongs." And we established many moons ago that you had no WP:3RREXEMPT, except in your own head. My fundamental point was that there is, indeed, a way of dealing with such editors, and we have a quantity of adminboards that allow us to do so. Your way was *not* the correct way, but since you clearly think you know best, there is absolutely no reason for you to reply. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Sorry Fortuna, I know you said you were done discussing this. I just have difficulty letting this go, since I feel like I keep seeing this same situation play out over and over again. A more experienced user will restore removed warnings from a vandal IP or new user's talk page, often past 3RR, because they think they are allowed to do that for some reason. It's not allowed. And 3RR applies to talk pages just like it does articles. Again, no one ever denied that 31.51.108.231 was a sock of a known troll. Of course, those edit summaries were unacceptable. But just for a moment, Boomer Vial, I want you to put your personal feelings aside and give WP:BLANKING a good, thorough read, because I'm still not convinced you've even looked at it yet. It doesn't matter if it's a troll or not, IP's are allowed to remove warnings. And really, what does forcing editors to keep unwanted warnings on their pages even accomplish? Sro23 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial and Sro23: That's OK Sro, that's really the point I wanted to make, but not so well or succintly as that. I respect Boomer's mainspace editing, and if this happened on any other page it would be of little consequence, and justified- see my little pic at the top left of this page for a start!!! Anyway, it's childish banning seasoned editors from talk pages :) welcome back, Boomer. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Sro23 If it helps clear up any confusion, I was following WP:IAR. It seems pretty pointless to allow IP editors who just vandalized to be able to remove talk page warnings. If has been a few days to a week, fine. Spare me the sarcasm, and the attitude Fortuna. I tried to explain to reasoning behind my edits, and you continued to tell me I'm wrong regardless of how I worded it. I'm curious how one can claim to respect another's mainspace edits while leaving comments such as; "So you goodnight you would do a viable impression of trolling this page instead?", "And we established many moons ago that you had no WP:3RREXEMPT, except in your own head."; "Your way was *not* the correct way, but since you clearly think you know best, there is absolutely no reason for you to reply." Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Naturally, I was referring to your articlespace edits. Your should take Sro23's advice. Either way, perhaps refrain from attempting further maintenance or admin actions until you do. Cheers — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your faith merits you an indulgence.

The Plenary Indulgence

Thank you for supporting my candidacy to run NPP. I found your support for me against of field of well-qualified Wikipedians meaningful. Although I did not win the consensus of the aggregate I hope you find that your faith in me was not misplaced. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about manually reviewing (AFC)

Is it an option to manually review articles that are submitted for review (via AFC)? I have heard it mentioned before. If so, is it welcomed by designated reviewers and higher ups (ie admins)? I want to help lower the size of the queue if at all possible. If you aren't sure, could you maybe tag someone who could answer? Thanks! TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor, no idea I'm afraid: I think the best place to ask is here- reckon most of the AfC bods hang out there. Cheers, -- — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I posted a modified version of this on there. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Question_about_manually_reviewing_.28AFC.29

Excellent, Sand Doctor. You mght be right; around here, there's nearly always a manual way of doing something as well (if only, of course, because it would have been how it was done before the automation!)- but the question, as you know, is whether there's been a discussion in some microscopic, barely-inhabited dark corner of the 'pedia in which a 'firm consensus' has been established *That*You*Cannnot*. So wait and see I guess :) Cheers, -- — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am also thinking that, if it is allowed and encouraged, it might be good practice and may also increase chances when I do eventually apply (when I meet time requirement as I have already surpassed # of edits one). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't mean to sound so aggresive

I just wanted to write a message real quick before someone asked me about the nomination. --DashyGames (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, are you and admin? (if you are let me add your talk page to my stalk list) --DashyGames (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@DashyGames: You left a message on a page about a six year old edit; why? And what nomination did you mean? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 07:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, i understand this, and the nomination was on the talk page of Material's subpage, (it was kinda accidental btw), i just wanted to blank the page and PROD the page. --DashyGames (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, if you are uncertain as to how things work, it's better to ask around first, instead of jumping in. As that can make more work for everyone else. And we wouldn't want that would we. Btw, DashyGames, what was the name of that other account you had? Nice to see you again :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 07:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Erh... it was TheDasherLegendXD and yes, i know my first edits on that account were really disruptive, i was a squeaker, i lost my password to both my Wikipedia account and email so i created this account, and yes, some things i did were really cringey --DashyGames (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I knew it was, DashyGames. Points for honesty though. Why not just carry on using that account? See WP:CLEANSTART, and you can change username (WP:CHU) too. Either way, you should acknowledge and link that old account to this one: put it on your user page. Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I will stop editing for a looong while 0-0. At least on the english wikipedia --DashyGames (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not say that's a requirement. Anyway, moving on; was there really any necessity in thanking me nine times in one minute on my own page?!?!?! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, there wasn't, and why did you tag Bbb23 anyways?. I don't know if I sound or sounded agressive, since my native language is spanish and my english level is not THAT good. --DashyGames (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And i didn't say that was a requeriment too, i just feel kinda discouraged. It's not about this discussion, I was thinking about resting anyways. --DashyGames (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is late. Or early, whichever way you look at it :) tagged because you were editing his UP for him: see WP:UPG. Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is actually fun. I don't even know if you're being serious here. You must be the funniest admin here (no i'm not being sarcastic). --DashyGames (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You know, when editors become admins, they have their sense of humour neurologically bypassed and / or surgically removed. Sorry to disappoint :)

— O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I know you're not and admin, btw i'm still hungry for discussion. --DashyGames (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent progress has certainly been made at this session :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ikr, now i must really go to sleep, just one more thing what time is it there that you aren't asleep? it's 3:42 AM here. Oh and were you stalking my edits? --DashyGames (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh and what does Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi mean? --DashyGames (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Bowman

On 8 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alice Bowman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alice Bowman, Mission Operations Manager of the New Horizons Pluto exploration mission, is also a bassist and clarinetist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Bowman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alice Bowman), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your assistance in cleaning up messes. Also I like the photo of the two dogs. Cheers from 99! 2601:188:1:AEA0:D5FA:9AFC:6E2B:8DD (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• No worries '99- thanks for putting it my way, wouldn't have missed reading that for the world. James Joyce, you got yourself some competition! Funny stuff. I thought we could save some it, but even the 'citations' were only to luvvie green room quotes. Do you think it was a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY too?

Let me see if I can find the picture of the dog sitting on my face to get me to wake up in the morning... although I'm not sure the world is ready for it yet ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet against it. Sometimes it's rather a shame to remove such interesting prose--I once involved myself in the bio here of a writer whose work I like, removing an 'authorized' version and rewriting it to conform to guidelines. Ended up in a brief email conversation. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D5FA:9AFC:6E2B:8DD (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great, talking to the man himself. If only some of this had imprinted itself on the RS... but it was not to be. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Double check my work

Please double check my 3 edits on this controversial issue. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Thanks for this. That's a good job there; and highlights, as you say, the fact that the IP, I see, clearly did have a concern- making the sources speak for themselves and not for us- and you have achieved that. Thanks very much! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I was giggling as I was doing this. I think IP is going to hate my version more. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe,  ;) if all they want is actually to just get rid of it! -and I thought you were just trying to show me up, Janweh64 :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hell no. I want to revert it too. You beat me to the punch. BTW, I didn't get your first ping because the {{re}} only works if you use it with ~~~~ at the same time. So next time you can delete your signature and sign again to send ping. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue

Any idea what that person (sock) at my talk is on about? Also, "warm"? I'm lost. Best. P.S. Love your doggies! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Anna Frodesiak, I don't (keeping our feet warm was just me trying to be clever about socks I'm afraid!)- although privet milaya is 'hello honey' in Russian, so if you've recently blocked any Russians recently...? I reported it at UAA as 'Wiki' name, but I don't know if that was right. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 ;) The dogs will love you right back- in exchange for sausages, chicken or a ham 🐶🐶🐶

Ah, warm, socks, I get it. I'd be the worst detective ever. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emerita (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) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:AmienDaouiji

You've posted two welcomes on User talk:AmienDaouiji. (Presumably, the automatic speedy thing posted the first?) Along with the CSD notice, I think that might be rather confusing for this new user, especially as they're clearly struggling with Wikipedia; maybe you could remove the duplication? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I do not think so. In fact, I note that they found their sandbox two minutes later; so I'm sure they can distinguish between templates and a personal note. And if it worries them, it means they have even more links to my talk page for advice  :) if, of course, it does worry them. Thanks for the thought though. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Apology

There was an incident about 6 days ago, i feel as though I let my emotions impair my usual good conduct and therein I spoke rude words to you, for that I'm sorry, I do not condone cyber bulling no matter how minute, so I don't have any right to do so to anybody, nonetheless, I still think my point then is very valid, next time I'd learn to switch off the gadget when I feel my emotions clouding my better judgement.

Furthermore the article I put a speedy delete tag upon Bijay Ketan Swain and you objected to has finally been deleted because of same reasons I cited earlier. You however seemed to know and dig up information about this character nobody else seemed to know. I suggest you create it this time, given your experience and time on here also your vast knowledge perharps it may stand a chance of not being deleted this time. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just parking this here.

Due to Shellwood's itchy revert finger :D But for background, see User talk:Floquenbeam#March 2017, and the subsequent edit war. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
7		Steel Tiger Records (talk)	Add sources
121		Noida Film City (talk)	Add sources
724		Werewolf of London (talk)	Add sources
7		The Cutler (talk)	Add sources
20		Desperado Corner (talk)	Add sources
30		Asia University (Japan) (talk)	Add sources
34		Legal aspects of workplace bullying (talk)	Cleanup
3		Muiris mac Torna Ó Maolconaire (talk)	Cleanup
1,840		European migrant crisis (talk)	Cleanup
522		SOAS, University of London (talk)	Expand
723		Asian Americans (talk)	Expand
56		Bullying in medicine (talk)	Expand
180		Fearmongering (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,030		Music video (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
490		Chink (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
56		Bullying and suicide (talk)	Merge
261		Buddhism in the United States (talk)	Merge
44		Evasion (ethics) (talk)	Merge
8		Andrew Hull (talk)	Wikify
19		Phlegm (artist) (talk)	Wikify
27		Louise Burfitt-Dons (talk)	Wikify
2		Sporsmaal2 (talk)	Orphan
5		Abbad Yahya (talk)	Orphan
2		Kathleen Margaret Brown (talk)	Orphan
100		Candlelight vigil (talk)	Stub
6		Nicholas I of Werle (talk)	Stub
11		James Phillips (playwright) (talk)	Stub
2		John James Fox (talk)	Stub
32		Bullying in the military (talk)	Stub
8		Ulrike Louise of Solms-Braunfels (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Onnanohito/Giorgia Lupi

hey Fortuna,

It would be great if the deletion of User:Onnanohito/Giorgia Lupi could be reverted. The person merely copied the text so that the basic structure of the article could be used to write an article about a similar person. This was also quiet obsivous because newcomers do this all the time. I did that myself. I'm sure you did this. I don't understand why a subuser page should be deleted.--Earlyspatz^Talk 15:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Earlyspatz. No, the text cannot be returned. Please see WP:COPYWITHIN, and specifically WP:ATTREQ- 'The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use are clear that attribution will be supplied. Just copying articles into userspace is effectively breaching other editors' own copyrights. Incidentally, the deleting administrator, Amortias, went beyond his call of duty by restoring a blank article template to the editor. Thus your request is rendered moot :) Hope you're well! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

alright. I've just never experienced this before even though I was at a lot of Edit-a-thons with newbies. I guess this must be a new guideline that has to be taken into consideration... Gets more complicated all the time. I think this is a deterrance to new editors just like the never expanding set of rules. But I guess it'S not possible to change that. --Earlyspatz^Talk 16:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

To my stalkers below- @Marcus Cyron and WS ReNu:- you would benefit equally from a re-reading of the policies mentioned. Thanks for your input, of whatever depth. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

+1. I really can't understand this deletion without any requesting. Is this the way, admins at en:WP act against new authors? I feel ashamed. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I don't think copyright's particularly new, nor is it a guideline: WP:LEGAL- a 'Wikipedia policy with legal considerations' is more like it. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

+1 --WS ReNu (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC) PS: Helpfull: Ally Skills

A link to a landing page that tells us next to nothing about the purpose of the site? Helpful? No, I don't think so. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: the policies on copyright are applied across the board. If Jimbo Wales created a page that was in breech of the copyright policies then it would be deleted. The policy on copyright applies across all namespaces including the draft, templates and user spaces (which the draft was in). If they wish to request its restored they can request this at deletion review. Amortias (T)(C) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Southern Vandalism

How is it an unnecessary change of image, that image has been on the page for nearly 5 years, so I cannot change it for a fresh one showing other parts of the fleet?86.183.182.67 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi 86.183.182.67, thanks for the message. You're nearly right: we probably can use such images, but, as you say, the previous one has been there long enough for a consensus to be deemed to exist on the matter; therefore, the next step is to discuss the atter on the article(s) talk pages, and reach a new consensus about them. Hope this helps! Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems silly when on other pages such as GWR(TOC) I have changed it with no problem, yet because a certain user doesn't want his pictures changed on Southern GTL we all have to do what he follows, as its only him who is complaining, the general consensus doesn't seem to care? If this is meant to be a public forum, why is it whenever one person acts like a spoilt brat we have to follow what they want?86.183.182.67 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It is most certainly NOT a 'public forum'; it is a community with a number of fundamental principals. One of many of which is WP:CON; it benefits a thorough read. Cheers! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the heads up. Now if you only had a shorter username ... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

...my typing finger wouldn't have a hard pad of skin! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Artist Publishing Group

Hi There, Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page, I appreciate your feedback but I'm entirely confused as to why the page was marked for speedy deletion. I wrote it in the draft space for review from knowledgable Wikipedia users (for this very reason) and feel that the page was not advertisement or promotion, let alone, read with any consideration. Like many other musical publishing groups that have Wikipedia pages (Kobalt, SONGS - just to name a few), it was a general overview of the company, with reputible and notible sources. Please advise with what changes can be made to reinstate the page. WikiWikiFresh (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@WikiWikiFresh: Thanks for the note! Well; where to begin? I suppose it all started, really, with this discussion here, in which it was noted that, as a topic for an enyclopaedia, the subject, an 'independent music publishing company' was actually 'independent of independent reliable sources.' That was fundamental. Last November. Since then, it has been recreated twice, with no difference to the text, prose, or tone. This unfortunately leaves them liable to being speedy deleted as having already been deleted with community consensus. As to your next move; you should really be having this or a similar discussion with administrator Yamla, who personally deleted the page on the last two occasions. But the advice may well be along the lines of: a) start a draft article in your sandbox, b) use independent, third party sources, providing depth and persistence of coverage in order to demonstrate the inherent notability of the subject, c) ensure that the tone of the article is neutral, with no verbatim cut and paste text from elsewhere and no hint of advertising, and d) submit your newly-created article through Wikipedia's 'Articles for Creation' wizard. This will lead to a fresh, neutral set of eyes to assess whether it fulfills the critera for articlespace. Hope this helps? Take care! Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wasn't aware of the previous history of spamming and the AFD, but I've replied to an identical query from WikiWikiFresh on their talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice!WikiWikiFresh (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear

From our past uhh "discussion" i want to state that I stopped taking it seriously when you asked me my username, so don't take anything I said after that seriously. Also, I see you like, EVERYWHERE. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 22:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Careful

You tagged Robert Towers' userpage for deletion on copyvio claims because it was an exact replica of a Wikipedia article. Now he's upset, and rightly so.

Be more careful next time. DS (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi DragonflySixtyseven. Copying and pasting article content onto other Wikipedia pages can sometimes be considered to be a copyright violation per WP:CWW. The easiest thing for the editor to do would be to provide attribution in his edit sums as to where the content originated from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Or, if the editor in question has forgotten, simply add a notice along those lines to the top of the page, instead of tagging it for deletion. DS (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

By saying, be careful, that makes it sound like I tagged it accidentally :D I think I'll probably stick to following our terms of use, and, you know, stuff like attribution and protecting the personal copyright of every editor who contributes to the project, etc. As for that particular editor, you will not find- and indeed, should be careful in giving- much sympathy: They have been using Wikipedia as their personal VLE / whiteboard ever since they arrived, and are only 'upset' because two administrators have called them on it. See discussions on User talk:RHaworth and User talk:Premeditated Chaos. Thanks for your note though. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

False positive on "74.6%"

User:Hansdar emailed me for help (I met her at an in-person editathon) in relation to your re-tagging her draft article for copyvio speedy after she had contested it and rewritten parts of the page.

If you look closely at the copyvio detector report, every red highlight is either specialist terminology or proper names of publications and events. As far as I can tell, this is a false positive: at 74.6% confidence the detector thinks 1/4 of such tags should be false positives.

She said "I am so tired there so many messages from different people since yesterday, and I am not able to figure out how to proceed". I'm afraid you've bitten a newbie too hard. In the future I'd implore you to look more closely at the copyvio report when you intend to tag a userspace or draftspace draft for speedy the second time. Deryck C. 10:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's an unfortunate side effect of trying to write puff-piece with a CV as the main source. What do they teach at editathons, I wonder? Clearly, insufficient on promotionalism, notability, primary sourcing, copyright, or close-paraphrasing And incidentally, an ironic side on copyright: 'Unlike edits and posts to Wikipedia's web pages, emails sent through the email facility are not automatically "freely" licensed by the sender, and therefore reposting would suggest to the world that the text is freely licensed for reuse and republication by its author, which is generally not the case.' Thanks for the note though. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ...How much do you expect one to be able to teach in 30 minutes? I wonder how long an average editor would need to spend to learn all the concepts you've mentioned as applied to Wikipedia, but I'm sure it's several orders of magnitude longer than 30 minutes. The impossibly high standards some editors expect from newbies is incompatible with (probably not the same editors') perpetual whining about dwindling editor numbers. Incidentally I agree with your ironic comment about copyright. That's why it's a small excerpt in double quotation marks. Deryck C. 12:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

True dat. If editathons all began with an exam on the MoS, you'd end up with an empty room :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Long-term abuse report?

I was wondering if you'd thought about creating a report for WP:Long-term abuse on barbarjohnson1, the sockmaster who is creating all those CK Morgan articles. I ask because you seem to have compiled information required for the report. They ask for a lot! I don't know what good it would do but it might expedite deletions going forward. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: That's rather a good idea- thanks very much! I mean, that is what it's for I guess. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh great. I started a report myself, but I just didn't have the necessary data and you seem to have it. Hopefully it will help. Thanks much for taking the time to do it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• CK Morgan, C.K M.O.R.G.A.N (FlyBoy), C.K M.O.R.G.A.N (DaFlyBoy), CK Morgan- Singer, CK Morgan (Flyboy), C.k Morgan, CK- Morgan, C.K-Morgan, C.K Morgan (singer), C.k Morgan (flyboy), C.k .Morgan,C.K .Morgan, C.K . Morgan, C.k Morgan (Daflyboy), C.K. Morgan, CK MORGAN, Ck Morgan (Rnb Singer), CK Morgan (Singer), C.k Morgan (DaFlyBoy), Draft:C.K. Morgan, Draft:CK Morgan, Draft:CK Morgan (Singer), Draft:C.k Morgan

• Wow. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Say if you ever were able to get that report started please let me know, as it would be useful to disseminate to other people who have been watching the various permutations of that sock. Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Coretheapple, I hope you're well- and I must apologise for not keeping you in the loop! I'm afraid I had forgotten all about this. But I asked NeilN's advice on this at the time (here), and he advised aganst it- as, although clearly an abuser over the long-term, part of the criteria also stipulate that Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, etc- and this character is only too easy to spot, obsessed as they are with pletherous permutations of CK Morgan! Sorry I didn't let you know this at the time- but keep eyes peeled eh. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Good point! Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops...

I didn't mean to revert you -- it's just my fat fingers. Glrx (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Glrx: No problem- I hadn't noticed it yet! Thanks for the note though. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude...

Read WP:VANISH please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sorry about that! Never had cause to read that before- but thanks. Perhaps get rid of my comment there. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikhilvenkatesh/sandbox

If you find a further copyvio at this page title, don't bother tagging it; just let me know and I'll delete and block. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Nyttend, wilco. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Why apologise? Upon seeing the ping, I checked the link and found that it was a copyvio (so I deleted it and blocked the user); what was the point of pinging me, if not to alert me that it had been recreated? Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, maybe I sound unhappy. Not at all! I just didn't understand what seemed like "I'm sorry I didn't notify you" after you'd helpfully notified me. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

AG Markets

Hey [User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|O Fortuna!]] you deleted the AG Markets article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AG_Markets&action=edit&redlink=1) yesterday. I would really like if you indicate me what to change on the article in order to not delete it. I've created this company's article but is a company that people is interested on, Is not advertising. So please, it would be really helpful if you indicate me what to change on the artice to not delete it. I can get some reliable sources... Thanks in advance Ksekoliara

• @Ksekoliara: As you already know, it was an adminstrator who deleted it, not me. Happy editing! 10:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ok then, I'll then talk to him. thanks

@Ksekoliara: Apologies if that sounded brusque; but the problem is precisely that. Once deleted, only administrators can actually view the deleted material. This means I have to rely on my memory to answer you; and, I assure you, never has there been a more unfaithful mistress than my memory to me :) And if I were to just guess, I could seriously mislead you. But I can at least give you some relevant reading if you want it, about what WP is not: specifically WP:PROMO (about how we define advertising), but also WP:NOTCV, WP:YELLOW might each apply to a greater or lesser degree. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ok then, I'll then talk to the admin so he indicated me how to edit the article. Thanks

I know, User:Ksekoliara. You did so a week ago, and the administrator told you that you had a conflict of interest, that the company wasn't notable, and that the article was basically an advert. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, but I said I created the company's webiste, but I intended to say the article, so now that's what I'm trying to explain to de admin, and that I have sources. Also believe it or not, the company has a large amount of clients, so I don't think is advert, why would they need wikipedia advert. But it's ok now, I wrote on the administrator's user talk, to try to fix this. +

But thanks anyways, User:Ksekoliara

• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I edited the article with independent sources, I think it may work now. What should I do? Sorry for the newbie question, I'm not entirely sure about Wikipedia procedures. You may read it in my sandbox.

Thanks in advance User:Ksekoliara

That's OK- there's a hell of a lot to learn around here t get an article off the ground- and often in quite a short space of time! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: So what should I do now? User:Ksekoliara

@Ksekoliara: Well, the best thing to do now, is to sit back, and wait- eventually, when the company becomes notable, and this is demonstrated by third- party, reliable sources, someone who is independent of the company might come along and write an article about it in impartial tones and from a balanced viewpoint. Until then, we have lots of articles that need improvement; you can be bold and edit almost anything. Enjoy! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: But I'm independent independent of the company, I tried to explain that to the other Wikipedia user, but I wrongly said I made this company's website but I was trying to say article. So now you guys think I work for the company. Is there a way, if a edit the article maybe, for the article to get published? Thanks User:Ksekoliara

Right... well, Ksekoliara, if there has been a misunderstanding vis à vis your relationship with the company (by the way, did they pay you to write it?) then I apologise on behalf of myself, User:RickinBaltimore, and the Wikimedia Foundation at large. But the other half of the problem I highlighted still remains- the question of AG Markets' general notability. This search gives us these results; and an administrator is unlikely to restore deleted material without some reassurances that sources exist to at least allow it to scrape through a potential 'Article for deletion' nomination. I'm not sure, unfortunately, that I can provide such reassurances: most of the sources are neither particularly independent, provide only passing mentions, with little of that being long-term (whilst filtering out the tonne of references to US 'Agriculatural markets', truncatedly known as 'ag-markets' on Wall St). Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bonville–Courtenay feud/GA2

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, this is one of several reviews by User:Adam Cuerden that have been left hanging for a month or more (in this case, two months). That's simply too long; they've been effectively abandoned. If you would like, I can put this back into the pool of nominations needing a reviewer. As this is the oldest extant nomination, it would instantly be the oldest waiting for a review, and with the GA Cup still going (but entering its final two weeks), there's a good chance that it will be taken very quickly by a reviewer, since you get a large number of bonus points for taking one of the ten oldest nominations needing a reviewer.

Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Well, I hope Adam's OK; but if you think that would be the best thing to do, then please do so. Thanks very much for the information! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So far as I know he's fine; he said he'd be busier off Wikipedia after December, and apparently it's been busier than anticipated. I do think this is the best thing to do; indeed, I've already done so with two other reviews opened shortly after this one, which have been similarly unaddressed. I've just put this back into the reviewing pool. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great- thanks for your help. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing in the page Pangsinanese Wikipedia, I have been written in Tagalog Wikipedia! --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 10:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

for reviewing my first Wikipedia article and your positive words. Appreciative newby here. Wayupt48 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bonville–Courtenay feud

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bonville–Courtenay feud you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion inquiry

Hi, I recently wrote my first article on Wikipedia under the title Draft:Mithi Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Unfortunately it has been deleted, I would really like to understand as to why, so as to improve on my future articles. Would love some assistance and tips. Thanks! Niharika89 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Niharika89 thanks for the message. Unfortunately, once the article has been deleted, there's very little I can do to help I'm afraid- now, you see, only administrators can see it. Which means I can't remember the detail of what you wrote. But, the note tells us it was deleted under G11 of the speedy deletion criteria. This means it was considered 'unambiguous promotion,' or advertising. This can mean, on the one hand, that it was written in language intended only to promote its subject; or that, the contents was directed only at the company's customers rather than the general reader. In the latter case, however well or calmly it is written, if it needs to be 'fundamentally' rewritten, it is a candidate for speedy deletion under the criteria, and I expect that your article fell into one or other of these circumstances I'm afraid. But the deleting administrator, User:Explicit, can perhaps furnish you with further detail. Cheers! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have messaged the deleting administrator, and should hopefully have the matter resolved soon! Niharika89 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elias Beckingham

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elias Beckingham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Yash! -- Yash! (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, cheers Yash! :) any news? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Women's World Games

Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

Thanks for your nice comment about the1923 Women's World Games, its a bit sad that these early steps in international athletics in general and in womens sport in particular are so unknown even though a few articles surfaced on the net after I wrote the first article in that series.

kind regards HoBe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobe (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

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.

Arthur Lawrence Hellyer Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Columbia College, ABC-TV, Paul Barnes, Bob Cunningham, On-air and Ken Griffin

WER v REW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Grey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why it's said time is valuable....

Oh! If I had read it a bit earlier.Anyway, treading your way from now onwards.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything's politics! ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Serial Number 54129. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 12:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

wp:uaa

FYI, This edit broke the html comment and prevented any subsequent reports from showing up. Cabayi (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for sorting that, Cabayi, and for letting me know. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Medventura

Hello, I tagged the above as U5 and notified at the talk page. I note that you have tagged the TP as G11 and notified me as the creator... It seems the user added the same content to his TP after the G5. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's gone from my TP now! Eagleash (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be it, certainly. Thanks for the note. It seems to be promoting the recycling of medwaste to me, but I grant you, G5 is perfectly applicable if not more so. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User page now deleted and editor blocked. Eagleash (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much :) Medventura != Aceventura... — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Bonville–Courtenay feud

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Shearonink- great pic! Reckon it would be suitable for the article? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be, my only concern would be that this plaque is a modern creation (I think the File parameters said it was done in 2015 - by the homeowner?) But it does lend some human interest and the fact that history can still be personal even some five hundred+ years after the fact... Shearonink (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bonville–Courtenay feud

The article Bonville–Courtenay feud you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bonville–Courtenay feud for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Cheryl Grimmer

Should Disappearance of Cheryl Grimmer be moved to [[Cheryl Grimmer murder case]] now that a man has been charged with her murder and will be extradited to Sydney? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paul, hope you're well. The short answer is- I'm not sure. Less than helpful, I know- what I mean is, on principle, I'd say, yes, disppearances than end up in results would be moved to reflect article content (i.e. the fact that the article now says someone has been convicted (incidentally- convicted, I think, not just charged- otherwise would be premature, and have possible BLP implications?)). But- apologies if I'm missing something- but the article doesn't seem to say anything about further developments? Not so as to warrant a page move anyway. Sorry if I've misunderstood you though. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

see this Tweet from a journalist reporting the latest development in Cheryl's case - https://twitter.com/RobertOvadia/status/844514221068988417 Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bonville-Courtenay feud

Hello! Your submission of Bonville-Courtenay feud at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - Vivvt (Talk) 07:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unambiguous self-advertisement on User pages

I'm curious, is it absolutely necessary to CSD user pages that contain self-advertising? I usually remove the content, then report the user to the UAA noticeboard, which takes care of the problem. I hope I haven't been doing it wrong this whole time. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Boomer Vial. I wouldn't say 'wrong'- after all, in this place, generally interpretation is key. But, yes, I regularly nominate them for deletion on these grounds, and yes, they regularly get deleted because of that (four examples from just yesterday, by four different admins: [9], [10], [11], [12]). Having said that, you're an experienced editor- if you've been doing it that way for so long, it can't be that 'wrong,' can it?! Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That being said, apologies about my removing of a CSD tag on an article you nominated. I just wasn't sure, is all. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Boomer Vial, and in some of those cases, the user also has to be blocked because of user name violations, so there is little point trying to keep COI promotional material from a now-blocked user Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Jimfbleak I see. This is why I tend to remove the content/report the violating editor to UAA. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 10:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's so the material is hidden and can't be returned to, or the revert undone. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

I was putting the pie chart in the right section in Delhi election 2015 from general election 2014. It took me some time and you removed my edit, now the pie chart is in two sections, correct it.

@Abhishek0831996: May I suggest you steer clear of making a particular edit when it is clear you do not know what you are doing? You removed the pie-chart with no edit-summary. If your edit summary had told other editors what you were trying to do you may not have been reverted and could even have been assisted. In any case, you don't need to remove it in order to move it. Please see WP:ES for the importance of summaries as explanations for one's edits. Please also sign your posts with ~~~~, and place new posts at the bottom of a user's talk page. Not half way up it! What the hell did you think you were doing?! :D It took ten minutes to find the thing. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

UNSC Luke 1021

You're the one who volunteered to mentor him; can you give me any reason, not to indef him in light of his current boundary-pushing games, as I'm certainly struggling to think of one. "Assume good faith" is probably the most important social policy we have, but it doesn't mean "allow someone to mess multiple editors around indefinitely"; when someone's on an "article edits only" restriction I shouldn't be seeing this. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: yes I did didn't I- but the offer wasn't taken up. Since it wasn't (and my rationale behind that was 'It'll be our way or the highway, as they say. Much more straitened than usual. In the knowledge that all these AGF privileges have just been used up. Any movement from the path- no further ANI possible; plenty of admins have already spoken their minds. They'll be queuing up to block indef if it goes mushroom shaped') I assume it was unpalatable to them. I've deliberately avoided commenting on their posts.

I think they know what they are doing; and your response is the end result. No, I can give you no reason- sorry.

And since I said- back then- 'admins will be at the front of the queue to block': if you happen to be at the front, then that's the way of it I suppose. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 20:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) This is making my head hurt now. Pinging @Iridescent and UNSC Luke 1021: here, so I can close the goddamn ANI thread. On the one hand, I guess at least a peer review could be considered vaguely content-related. On the other hand, why, oh why, is Luke testing boundaries instead of just finding a tank-related article and improving it? Why is his first edit designed to make other people do work? Why choose the one area that is closest to the boundary between OK/not OK to do next? Why make me spend 4 hours trying to come up with an air-tight precisely worded list that can't be gamed? Luke, just... just please stay completely out of WP space, unless you've checked in with FIM here, and he thinks it's OK. FIM, I'm happy to trust your judgement on what's OK and what's not. And if you never actually agreed to be a mentor, then let me know and I'll not involve you further. I really want to make this somebody else's problem now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh. crap. so you aren't a mentor. I just... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I'll take it somewhere else.... no sense having it happen here.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: No the offer was ignored- but not withdrawn. Think it's useful? Set it in motion. Iridescent raises a pertinent problem though: perhaps it's just forgetfulness on L's part. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 20:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - I've been wanting to update the FDNY article for a very long time, but I've mostly been doing anti-vandalism work. With that out of he way I've been looking at peer reviews and whatnot because that was the next thing on my list to do. I'm not attempting to push any boundaries here; I thought that it was perfectly acceptable and was not aware that it would cause a problem until Iridescent brought it up. I'm not trying to make 'other people do the work', I'm just asking for suggestions. I'd go to the NY or FD WikiProjects but they're defunct at this point. I would actually be doing most of the work by finding sources and updating content. I don't like to game anything, I just assumed that PR would be a stepping stone to bringing that article up to GA or FA. FIM, sorry for using your talk page, but I was pinged here. If you strongly think I should take mentoring, then I will. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly think mentoring is just about the only chance there is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: What is it about article / content work you find boring? My (diluted, perhaps) offer is still open: and perhaps the terms were too harsh the first time. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 20:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I find article content boring because generally, most (90%) of my editing is done at school. I wouldn't mind article editing if I didn't need sources (an impossibility). However, I can't get sources easily because I'm always in class and a lot of websites are generally blocked. I like anti-vandalism ans UAA because of the lack of outside research. All I need to do is go into 'recent changes', find somebody who pastes 'fuck you' into an article, revert the vandalism and warn the user. UAA is similar, where I can just go into 'new users', report violations and I'm done. The need for outside research is restricting on my editing ability, and I feel I'm better suited in anti-vandalism. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to take your offer to put an end to any problems I might have. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I hadn't seen the this ANI thread last night- if I had, I might have responded slightly more robustly. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're stopping the discussion or if everyone is just offline, but I'm not sure. I feel better suited at anti-vandalism. I think that when I'm restricted from doing that and have to work on article space, I struggle to find something that I would be able to extensively work on and find unblocked sources for. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... there are both simple and difficult ways to work through article editing. I can name a number of different things that you could do:
1. Wiki-gnome work; pick articles you're interested in, or, use the "random article" function and do a general copy-edit of the article cleaning up spelling, grammar, or rephrasing. I can post you to a link in Wikiproject MILHIST that could concentrate your skills towards specific articles; Articles in otherwise good shape, but, with poor grammar and articles with other issues as well as grammar.
2. You do have pending changes reviewer rights, you can also do pending changes reviewing as that will be concentrated in article space. I have not participated in pending changes reviewing though so I can't be of much assistance there. Warning; do not go the pending changes reviewing route without express permission from Floquenbeam themself (as they have pre-emptively disbarred Anti-vandal work)
3. For gathering sources that should not be blocked by your school, look at "Google books" and use the previews available - I'd be shocked if google books is blocked by your school.
4. Other suggestions welcome...
I did, in a similar vein to FIM, offer to take on a bit of a mentoring role here. I had noticed Luke on various Wikispace and Noticeboard pages, but, it just didn't register that this was in violation of their agreement. I've been semi-here (not doing much article work), however, I check messages daily. I would assume that for mentoring purposes, and mentoring purposes only, that Luke would be allowed to use their mentor's user talk page to leave a message, or, ping on their user talk page. What I could do in this role is do a daily check of Luke's edits, make sure they are sticking by their agreement and give guidance both of my own volition (meaning where I have guidance to give) and also at request. I do have to ask one question (for which you will all hate me greatly, particularly Floquenbeam) article talk pages, go or no go? I'm concerned that making article talk a no-go could create trouble in itself; WP:BRD in particular. Bridge to cross later or take into consideration now? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this Mr rnddude I would be very much surprised if article TPs are a no-go area- as you say, it could make article work very difficult. In fact, in the context of discussions and notifications, etc., I would have though user TPs wouldn't be particularly out of bounds- with, of course, WP:NOTFORUM borne in mind. Perhaps The Floqu could clarify. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that in the spirit of Floq's ban, regardless of the actual wording, both Talk: and User talk: are fine provided they're only used to discuss the improvement of articles and not for general goofing around. The general rule for this kind of situation is "if it's a page you can reach by typing WP:, assume it's out of bounds unless you're certain to the contrary". ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure which particular comments above I'm commenting on, just doing one general one. I am more than happy to defer all judgement calls and interpretations to FIM; you have no idea how happy I will be when I'm no longer pinged about Luke, either because he's seen the light, or because he's been indef blocked. FIM, the main thought I had in proposing these restrictions in lieu of an indef block is: Luke often doesn't know what he's doing in the AN/ANI/ITN/AFD/any-process-or-conflict-you-can-think-of environment, so I'm trying to get him into content creation so at least he's doing something useful while he learns the ropes. Whatever approach you think is best to achieve that goal is fine with me. Obviously discussing article content on article talk pages is OK, it's part of content creation. Obivously going to an article talk page and using it as a discussion forum because working on articles is boring is not OK. Look, I'm not enforcing this because I think everyhone should do article work all the time. I hardly do any. I'm proposing this because it seemed like maybe just maybe there was some value in Luke's work that was worth trying to refocus. I just want people to focus less on dotting i's and crossing t's of the restrictions - which I claim no particular skill in - and start focusing on getting Luke to stop making other people waste a lot of time. So from now on, I don't need to clarify anything, because FIM is in charge as far as I'm concerned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion Floquenbeam:p - I replied to on Luke's TP. Hope that doesn't through a spanner in theworks! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @UNSC Luke 1021: I notice from rummaging about on your user page ... Astroneer still needs sources. There were lots linked at the second AfD. Go for it. (Imagine I am doing an imitation of Sir Alec Guiness or Frank Oz.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• (Not-quite tps, but randomly saw this late) @UNSC Luke 1021: If most of your editing is done at school, and you attend a public school in the United States (don't feel the need to confirm or deny that), most state library systems have some sort of database subscription program they offer through their public library systems, and most public school librarians know how to access it (see this example from Arizona that I just Googled as an example [13]). Maybe consider talking to your school librarian about how to access those? At the very least, it would help prepare you for research writing later in your academic career, in addition to being a better editor here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

hi can you take a gander for me?

Hi can you look at Voluntary student unionism? I think there might be problems, especially with the "arguments" sections, but lack the self-confidence to repair the article myself. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

biting newbies

You seem to have deleted a sandbox??? Sends exactly the wrong message IMO Victuallers (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Victuallers, thanks for the note :) but I think @NeilN and Primefac: have probably dealt with the matter by now. Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages East March and George Neville (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) 10:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Help

So, I guess you're my mentor now. So I'll direct questions towards you.

Am I allowed to CSD this? I wasn't patrolling; I found it through the random page button while looking for stuff to improve. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

UNSC Luke 1021 Yeah go for it. G11 as I'm sure you know. But please- and don't take this the wrong way- don't just click through that button looking for admin-leanng tasks to perform- when you might have flicked through pages that need content improved! I'm sure you weren't- I just think I should say it out loud. For my own sake, say. OK? Carry on; but remember contentcontentcontent is our watchword. Have a good evening! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanx for helping and wud like to have more instructions on helping my community from Lubumbashi D.R.Congo Lubumbashimedia (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lubumbashimedia: and welcome: we have an article on Lubumbashi, which has plenty of red links in it- that basically means that we haven't got an article on it yet, but somebody thinks we should! So you can click on thse red links, and that will start you off. Then, just submit your new article: see here for a guide. However: I note your username may not meet our guidelines for names. It suggests you may represent a company or that you are sharing your account- booth are against our guidelines I'm afraid. And, combined with the fact that your sole- although worthy- edits so far are about a local DJ (and inserted into a big article here too), suggests that in fact you are solely here to [[WP:PROMO|advertise] this particular individual. As such, I should advise you that if you are in any way receiving payment for this promotion (whether in cash or goods, or as an agent or representative of the subject), then undisclosing this relationship this is very much also against wikipedia's Terms of Use. So, as I say, concentrate on creating National Museum of Lubumbashi, perhaps :) happy editing! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

4dbrown

Hey would you please consider removing or changing the notice here, since you changed your mind and just fixed it? Don't want to confuse them... Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, of course- as I should've done at the time, and totally forgot. Thanks for the poke! -and thanks too for helping out on that page- Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

:) Thanks for bringing it to COIN. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 18:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

• (page stalker) @FriyMan: - I requested an assessment at WP:MILHIST, so that may speed things up. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

RFA

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I was thinking of nominating you for adminship. do you accept?--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Kostas20142, I do not.

But thank you very much for the kind offer, and for the vote- or should I say !vote :) -of confidence. I should thank you, too, for giving my WP:TPS out there the biggest chuckle they've had in a long time on this page ;) thanks again! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

no problem :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(page stalker) Isn't FIM already an admin, @Kostas20142:? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't FIM already a crat, check user and steward? TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't TJW already a founder? There can only be one, but Jimbo very properly relinquished the founder flag to Bishzilla in 2013,[14] and she has become quite blasé about it. As far as I've seen she uses it to polish her nails claws nowadays, so I reckon somebody else might as well have it tomorrow, while there's still anything left of it. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC).

Well, she is now one of the ladies who lunch I imagine...? -And you could have a userbox saying "The first admin blocked by TJW" ;) for continuity purposes only of course — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Wales autoconfirmed yet? Good thing this is the encyclopedia that anyone can destroy edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This user is not literally Jimbo Wales but would like to be someday.

Isn't TJW already a founder? Of course not. You obviously missed my userbox. TimothyJosephWood 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Guess it was a waste of time after all. Thank you - really - for giving it a try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied on your talk; nnr. Cheers! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For giving me several laughs today that interrupted an otherwise uneventful workday. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha! TonyBallioni- "Am I a clown? Do I amuse you?!" ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A clown? Oh heavens no. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Clowns aren't amusing anyway.

The nutter from It, maybe!!! -CSD tagging spammers in their sleep :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious

category invasion

Thank you for quality articles such as Humphrey Stafford (died 1442) and English invasion of Scotland (1400), for making others smile, but also feel when they are sad, for a great username and picturing Category:Category police, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Gerda!! I will treasure this always. I do hope you are well. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 23:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seeing yellows everywhere....

Hi Fortuna, have you noticed any recent change highlighting all I.P. edits in your watchlist in yellow?(I doubt whether it arises due to changes to any of my installed scripts etc.)Winged Blades ^Godric 13:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo Blades, only four- the usual kind of thing- on British empire, Gender dusphoria, history of Iran, Amritsar, etc. Not that they are always vandalism I have to say- in fact, of those four, only the first one was obvious. The yellowy highlighting of possible disruptivetext has been on watchlists for some time now (I think)- but do you mean it's got worse?

Also- while you're here- on the Rwandan Govt Exiled AfD, did you mean that other versions of it have alreday been deleted? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD Opinions

Hi there! Could I possibly get your opinions on some MfD nominations? If so, here are a couple: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:HD-BNC connector, and/or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CNU? If not that's fine.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Recent Events

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Recent Events. I hope it is not hard for you to provide some input into the discussion. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 13:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Am I doing this right?

Here we see the new experimental categorization being implemented by X!'s tools

TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Nice to see you again, My Lord of Wellingtons ;) very well done! You've got the proportions just right- the bollocks are in the majority! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

email?

I had an alert that you had sent me an email, but nothing's arrived in my inbox, presumably a vagary of wikimail... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

H'mmm Jimfbleak How bout: User:Factsnursing/sandbox? — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 04:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

yes deleted. I'd like to block, but the user name isn't really loaded enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Many thanks- it had been suggested otherwise, that's all. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"it had been suggested otherwise" are you referring to a block there? I'm not sure about that; if it had been "Bestnursing" or something with "test" in I would have blocked. Also, the editor has a string of apparently innocuous minor edits, not just this, so for once I think I have to AGF Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not the block- everything's OK! Thanks for popping back though. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 15:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about your vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978)

Hi there! Just had a (minor) question regarding your delete vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978). What did you mean by MfD being the "copper-fastened route"? That it is better/safer to do it that way or?

Thanks for your time & input!

TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: No reflection on your choice of venue at all- merely the fact that in most cases (except copvio, blpvio etc- obviously bad stuff)- a speedy can be WP:REFUNDed- whereas XfD involves a community discussion, which is then less likley to be overturned. Note, fr'instance, how G4 applies only to pages deleted that way- not speedy. Although, perhaps, slightly more work to initiate, the rsult is- in my words- amost 'copperfastened.' Hope I've explained that OK- I'm sure it could've been said shorter :) — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 19:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't take it as an insult or anything and you did answer my question. I figured that you meant something along those lines but just wanted clarification, both for curiosity's sake and also as a tip to help me improve as a Wikipedia Editor (I think we are called Wikipedians?). Thanks again! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD Opinion #2

Hi there! I was just wondering if I could get your opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Soorebia? If not that's fine.

Thanks for your time!

TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass messaging

I too have vaguely uneasy feelings about mass messaging. I think it was User:Technical 13's use of MM in connection with Wikipediholism nearly 2 years ago that led to it sticking in my mind. There were objections to MM being used for humour rather than serious wiki-work, which then escalated into full tantrums, sockpuppetry, arbitration, and quitting the wiki just ahead of a block. It was a crying shame because T13 was a great developer of templates, and developed many of the tools still in use. Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Cabayi, thanks very much for the info. I saw a more recent discussion in which tempers (might have) got a little frayed, so I suppose that shows how long memories some editors have! Yeah I saw that about T13 a while back- I went to his page to ask a question about ?something, and it was rather a nasty surprise. as you say, pretty tragic. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 12:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham

Hiya, just checking you haven't forgotten about that. Do you need anything? (Also, awww, doggies!) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo HJ Mitchell, I'll get to it now: some of AuntieRuth's suggestions are- slightly opaque? — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 13:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure if you addressed what you could then asked Ruth to clarify, she'd be obliging. Think of A-class more like peer review than FAC. Most of the veterans use it as FAC preparation because the aim is to work together to make sure the article is up to scratch, so reviewers are happy to help you along. I'll go over it myself at some point, but I usually wait until other reviewers' comments have been addressed so that I'm reviewing the most up-to-date version. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, User:HJ Mitchell, I will definitely do so. Ploughing through it atm. Stella and Eddie say hello :) 🐕 🐾 🐶 — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 14:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (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) 09:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Done

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
85		Prince Augustus William of Prussia (talk)	Add sources
51		Central Catholic High School (Massachusetts) (talk)	Add sources
54		Sh'erit ha-Pletah (talk)	Add sources
333		Moot court (talk)	Add sources
34		Pre-colonial history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (talk)	Add sources
3		Peter Serwan (talk)	Add sources
45		Police cadets in the United Kingdom (talk)	Cleanup
10		St. Mary's Church (Dedham, Massachusetts) (talk)	Cleanup
576		Gangs in the United States (talk)	Cleanup
5		Peter J. Uglietto (talk)	Expand
364		Individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust (talk)	Expand
67		Too Phat (talk)	Expand
25		Pope John XXIII High School (Everett, Massachusetts) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
21		Ambeon (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
54		Bhera (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
22		National Board for Respiratory Care (talk)	Merge
16		Outline of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (talk)	Merge
5		NBRC-CSE (talk)	Merge
4		John Barton Roy (talk)	Wikify
1,241		Elizabeth Peña (talk)	Wikify
37		Timothy Mason (talk)	Wikify
6		Lazarevskiy Bridge (talk)	Orphan
10		Buisine (talk)	Orphan
3		Moye Kolodin (talk)	Orphan
6		Mount Saint Joseph Academy (Rutland, Vermont) (talk)	Stub
16		Royal Wellington Golf Club (talk)	Stub
7		Our Lady of Good Voyage Church (Gloucester, Massachusetts) (talk)	Stub
12		Music of the Comoros (talk)	Stub
4		Edouard Masengo (talk)	Stub
14		Given Singuluma (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading too fast

Thanks for that revert; I'd never run into Paul on-wiki and was in automatic mode -- talk page, click the + symbol, paste, save. I hope I spot anything similar in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie No problem- I hope I didn't impinge your motive- see, I intended to remove both messages at once but only opened the section not the whole page, so when I mentioned 'tasteless,' I was refering to the message before yours- wishing hims happy christmas of all things! Yours I assumed to be automated mas-message or something, in which case you couldn't have know. Thanks for the message though- and, ending on a happier note, have a good weekend! — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 16:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Aurobindo Mission School

Could I please get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Aurobindo Mission School? Thank you for your time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Withdrew MfD nomination and nominated for G11 instead. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Syntactic noise

Hi again Fortuna! I was just wondering if I could get your opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Syntactic noise. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Primefac :) — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 07:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Message

Hi there,

It has been suggested I ask you direct why you have gone onto the Georgina Downs page (that is me) and removed a large portion of text saying it is unsourced when it is sourced in the references at the bottom, and in relation to the acute health effects that you removed it is in the Independent article word for word!!

It is of great concern to me to learn that it is not possible to know who anyone making changes to someone's page is and whether they have a conflict of interest (ie. farming or pesticides industry etc.)

Not suggesting at all you have those COIs but please I would be most grateful for someone to let me know how Wikipedia editors COIs are disclosed as I am really not sure where such information is found.

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: thanks for the message. I do hope you are well. I replied to (some of) your points on the article talk page, which is probably where it should stay- but, regarding identities, we take personal privacy very seriously, unless- like you- we choose to reveal our identities. I don't think- for example- that Martinevans123 works for the chemical industry. I happen to know, in fact, that he is a part-time morris dancer currently working on an ostrich farm near Milton Keynes- although of course, that's not important right now. Take care! — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 16:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Martin is only one of the editors, so no idea about any COI of any others in relation to the page about myself and my campaign. I notice you didn't mention about yourself? I do think it is important that if people are changing important pages that are available publicly on the internet then they should really be public facing not shielding themselves away. Thefactcorrecter (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think, Thefactcorrecter, you should read our guide regarding casting aspersions and then withdraw that poorly-worded suggestion. In any case, all your further discussions on this topic should be on the article talk page, rather than here. Many thanks. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I may not have worded it perfectly in the previous message and so apologies for that, but my fundamental point is this - it seems ANYONE at all from anywhere around the world can go onto Wikipedia as an editor and alter things on a page. My question is how can anyone know who anyone is and any related COI involved in that person altering things? Is there any links on Wikipedia related to that side of it? Will go back to the talk page but just wanted to reply to your message to me here. Thefactcorrecter (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: No problems then, OK. As for the COI, well: 'On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog' eh! It's a somewhat inherent ?danger in having an 'Encyclopaedia anyone can edit'- and it's not automatically a problem, as long as the edits adhere firmly to our (fundamental) 'neutral point-of-view' policy, and other policies, guidelines I mentioned (sourcing, etc). Whiiich is more or less what that other page is all about, in a nutshell. or case, you might say! — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sweat (play)

On 10 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sweat (play), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lynn Nottage interviewed residents of the poorest city in America while developing the play Sweat, which has been described as "the first theatrical landmark of the Trump era"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sweat (play). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sweat (play)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Untitled message

Hi,

Since you have nominated my page twice for speedy deletion would really appreciate it if you could help me refine it to make it wiki ready.

Runa1123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes for Piers Morgan article

Ruby Tandoh calls him a 'sentient ham' when asked whether she'd be available to chat about making an appearance on Good Morning Britain.

References

References

DYK for Bonville–Courtenay feud

On 13 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bonville–Courtenay feud, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Bonville–Courtenay feud, the earl of Devon's men stole all Nicholas Radford's horses and the sheets off his invalid wife's bed? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bonville–Courtenay feud), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your name mentioned at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. We hope (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but what the actual fuck is going on? I think we just answered the question as to whether we would rather lose one of our best admins rather than do a damned thing about one of our recently worst. Doesn't really have anything to do with you personally, I just... needed to post that somewhere. What the fuck... TimothyJosephWood 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: You're spot on mate. "We're through the looking glass, people" or whatever it was. I feel a bit sorry for Amortias because, whatever they originally thought (probably something along the lines of 'oh, this is what I'm meant to do', because they've seen it happen before), whatever they thought they could handle, this has just dumped so much shit it's like a fly-past by Nellie the Elephant :) But Laser brain... now that's the real tragedy. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think GR's RfA just tilted the whole project, or at least the top end of it. The absolute horse shit that's been happening at the current RfA is just crazy, and now we have folks at ANI openly threatening blocks for "questioning their judgement". Maybe Amortias wasn't keenly aware of the history and how messy the thing would be, but it's not the block itself, but the post facto justifications for the differences in behavior and results. I don't know whether to go with the painfully obvious or the somewhat less obvious Orwell reference. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The good editors getting taken to the glue-factory...? or, four admins good, two editors bad? Yes you're right that the aftermath has been fireworks- these are interesting times. You know, it would be WP:OR to see it as microcosmic to the big wide world, but- know what I mean? Not that it's 'like' Trump or anything, I just mean, people being even more volatile as a default response to everything. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Whew. Ok. I'm over it. I just needed some good comic relief, like someone so self absorbed that they called themselves an Ultrapreneur in their own promotional and obviously autobiographical Wikipedia article. Thank god we've still got things like that. TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant  :) 'Ultrapr'- something else beginning with a 'p'? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

FYI, from the geolocation, the IP was the banned editor HarveryCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

and dedicated to using your talk page as the O.K. Corral :) cheers 🍻 ! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I was thinking of nominating Anarchyte (talk · contribs) for adminship, and i am looking for one or two co-nominators. Are you interested? --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you could do far better than me, Kostas20142, although thanks for the compliment :) I note that User:J947 expresed a willingness to noinate (although a greater-tenured editor might be preferable); perhaps Ritchie333 could opine, as he is a seasoned nominator. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Having a longer-tenured editor than you or me would certainly be preferable. J947^(c) 17:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Now, J947, I do wonder what you precisely mean by that. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned about a few recent AfDs, so I was planning to wait until July before considering a nomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: (edit conflict) Thanks for the offer man, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm ready just yet to have another RfA. The points brought up by SoWhy on his talk page were great and I'd like to cover those before throwing my name into the ring, especially after how Dane's recent RfA flipped on its head after a couple of days. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't envy the person tied to the stake, but it would be extremely interesting to see if a co-nom by a hand full of non-admins could actually get a body through the thing. TimothyJosephWood 12:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly used to- how easily I can't remember- but at some point- last year?- it seemed to devolve into an admin duty of sorts. Or maybe I'm talking rubbish :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Marinamano U5

If you're going to U5 Marinamano's course response subpage, please have a look at the other students in the course and see if you want to do the same. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: Thanks very much for that link... I_See_What_You_Mean. I thought that was their personal musings (so WP:NOTBLOG) rather than an official page. What do you advise? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 05:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Being that it's been referred to in an AFD as well as on ENI, I'd keep this particular user's at least. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

H'mmm I did wonder earlier whether it would be useful to us as a reminder. Since there's quite afew of that class, perhaps a wider input is required. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre interlude

Trolling; rather dull, really.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortuna Matrix Mandag I can write what I will as long as Wikipedia is operating in the US with it's 1st amendment. Unless I do illegal speech, illegal speech will be taken down by the internet police, including hate speech, offensive language or inappropriate things, for which is determined under the current law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.188.2 (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC) @WP:TPWs, this is re. [15]- although god knows why. — O Fortuna you are always waxing, and waning; 11:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Don't slaunter the name with blasphemy or I will report you for hate speech and illegal speech Fortuna Impematrix mundi. The name is "Jahve" not G-d you racist anti semitic blashpemic interventionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.188.2 (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Blocked for WP:PA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Fortuna, MelanieN's block is for 36 hours. If there is a recurrence when the block expires, the next one will be much longer. You don't have to keep the attack on your page, just delete it of you wish. Let mes know if know if you want those edits hidden in the history too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN and Jimfbleak: Thanks very much to you both, your help's appreciated. That's right too- as per DENY, I shouldn't leave that here, I'll archive it, as it could offend other tpws although I think mine are a pretty hardy breed eh ;) Happy holiday to all! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC) I have called the case to User:Black Kite's attention, as he was involved in two previous blocks of a similar IP range, and expressed a willingness to consider a range block if it continued. Maybe you should simply hat this thread instead of deleting it, so that Black Kite can see it if he wants to follow up. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC) That's informative- will do. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Black Kite rangeblocked for a month. He says, let him know if you see this same user with an IP outside this range. Now you can go ahead and archive or nuke this thread, as you wish. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Right, Thanks MelanieN, if it's ok as per DENY, I'll archive, so I can come back to it; otherwise I'll never remember... — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought of this, but, didn't realize that links wouldn't work in hatting.[16] Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Classic :D a lyrical genius! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Fortuna, just following up on User:Rakesh Kumar Jha Sukhsena which I nominated for speedy deletion and you said is already an article (A. P. J. Abdul Kalam) - the two are not the same, it appears that the editor has copied the article to their user page and then edited it to insert information about themselves, including linking to their own blog, which is why I nominated it. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Melcous: Thanks for the note. I couldn't get Earwig running earlier, but now it says that the page is 95% copyio, so that sounds like a reasonable tag :) cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Incident vs language

I'll try to avoid further posting on Silver's page, having just done so (and saying that I'll stop for now). But I just wanted to say that I agree that [17] was spectacular. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

...while this was excellent, PaleoNeonate. Thanks! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Beech Holdings

It's back! (to close to what was deleted). However, the editor has removed the most blatant of the promo language to more neutral phrasing. It's still not neutral, nor does it appear to be notable, but that's what AfC is for so I'm inclined to leave it alone for now. Your opinion is always welcome. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Its funny though, because if this is almost what was deleted, then what it was like was far worse when I tagged it-! I think. Mind you, I'm confused about that other one- that was a dupicate of this but presumably isn't now. In fact, my head's spinning; although not at 78.26 rpms ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He copied from another draft about a company founder, then replaced it with the deleted copy, minus the most obviously promotional phrases I specifically pointed out, and he actually made a couple of other changes that make it more NPOV. But, yeah, it's enough to give someone allergies.... cough is getting better 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Request

We have met a few times, most of the time you don't seem to share my views, and that is precisely why I want to request something from you. There is a discussion on Talk:Jews#Sources where I think User:Jytdog is being too belligerent. He got all hot about a content issue, opened an Rfc, told me not to post on his talkpage any more, and is making unreasonable procedural demands in that discussion. I think it might help if somebody else told him that he should tone it down, take a break, chill, etc. Would you mind to look into this, please. I have worked with this editor in the past, and frankly have no idea why he is all worked up about this. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Debresser this is kind of surprising. First you misrepresent and say there is consensus that unsourced, disputed-for-a-year content should stay in the article, and now you are breezily spinning a line that I am the problematic actor. Since when is BURDEN "unreasonable"? Please stop wasting everyone's time with dramah and either provide the sources to support the content or agree that it comes out of the article. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that is did not misrepresent, but that is not the issue. The issue is that yes, you are too belligerent and unreasonable in your posts on this matter. I wanted an uninvolved editor, who can not be accused of having a prejudice in my favor, to have a look at your edits and perhaps write you an outside opinion. That is good practice for diffusing tensions, quite the opposite of drama. By the way, I am surprised this post came to your attention. It was definitely not supposed to. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You pinged me for pete's sake, and the fact that you intended not to makes the behavior worse, not better. I thought you knew what you were doing in WP but it is become apparent that my assumption is incorrect. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not @ "ping" you. The fact that Wikipedia nowadays makes a link to your page turn up as a ping is not a feature I am particularly fond of. Again you go down the path of personal attack... Debresser (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but any talk page stalker can see that you pinged him. That's not an argument you are going to win. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Was I trying to? Why is everybody out to prove somebody right, or wrong, winning or losing? What is with Wikipeida these days? Debresser (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)--@Debresser:--Well, I apparently believe all this needless warring would go for a toss, if you straight-away disclose the sources at the talk rather than clutching onto them. And who knows-Jytdog may be compelled by to revise his stance.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is an option. And I probably would have, if not that Jytdog makes demands he is not entitled to make. It is the attitude that I posted about here. By the way, I rather like the idea of adding the source(s) after the unprotection. I mean, why not? Definitely not against any rules. If anybody will want to challenge them, which I doubt, they can do so afterwards. Debresser (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not how it works. Read WP:BURDEN. Read it. It is policy. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am well familiar with it, and nowhere does that policy say that sources must be provided on the talkpage for the approval of Jytdog before they are added to the article. :) You'd do well to be less condescending. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. You have violated what it does say. I am not responding here further, as this is more unproductive dramah. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2!!! @Debresser and Jytdog: Hi both, just to quickly apologise for not saying much so far- I'm only on the mobile atm, which isn't very convenient, and won't be at the PC for a few hours yet (UTC+1). I will say, though, that of course I'm happy to have a look at your ongoing discussion- although if it's in the role of WP:3O, then that should come before an RfC, not after. I mean, this could be rather more complex than third opinion allows for. Chat soon! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 04:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again This is becomng quite urgent. The page was unprotected (I almost said: Jews are now unprotected), and I added a modified statement with sources, and also made an unrelated edit. Jytdog, being the hothead that he is, unfortunately, reverted everything,[18] with the edit summary "garbage sourcing. No. I expect El C to take action now." At the same time, he strangely did not mention his claimed problems with the sources on my notification on the talkpage.[19] The only thing he did post was a blatantly incorrect and rude claim as though I had not made any proposals,[20] to which I later replied with a diff proving him wrong.[21] It seems to me that Jytdog's issues are WP:LIKE, WP:OWN and perhaps even WP:IDONTLIKEUSERDEBRESSER. In any case, his behavior is far from collegial community editing. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: Sorry, I took my off the ball on this one- am going to comment there now. I see El_C has reprotected the page; I do think that we need to get this sorted ASAP, as he has been very generous, I think, with merely protecting, and we should take advantage of it while it lasts! Right. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Serial Number 54129. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks MelanieN, but I won't be able to access email for a few hours yet- currently on a mobile device which seems to be becoming more medieval by the day :) I'll get back to you asap though. Hope you're well! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 04:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Take your time. We all have time zone issues anyhow. It can easily take 24 hours just to say "hello" and "hello". --MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try sprucing in your sandbox

Those two pictures are blocking text on both sides of the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but I love the coffee mug! --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't see. Also I can't scroll. Maybe the fact that this page is 294,869 bytes has something to do with it. Are you competing with EEng? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yow Drmies who could ever compete with EEng?! or would want to! :p I have reduxed slightly though. Better for your eyes and scrolls? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

ve the coffee mug? Is that a new coffee fanatic thing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know what you meant - the superimposed mug actually blocked the first part of my sentence. But that point is kind of lost now that Fortuna removed the mug. But all is not lost: maybe we should invent a new word, "ve". Nominations are open as to what it might mean. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I seem to have attracted unnecessary and unhealthy attention. It took so b****y long to do though :( But it's true that you have to open the edit panel to actually see what has been written. A mild inconvenience, certainly. Sorry about that folks. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's French!

"Soixante-neuf." Ha! I loved that. :') sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminded me of this. Merci! :) Have a goood Friday Beemer69 — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm TheSandDoctor. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Prabhatsingji, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo, @TheSandDoctor: I think I'll ask you here actually  ;) so, you unreviewed the page, eh? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that it posted that and I unreviewed it as it was nominated for deletion. It being reviewed means that it can be seen by search engines (as far as I understand) and if it is up for deletion, isn't that something that we don't want? If I am incorrect in that I apologize. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's OK Doctor :) What has happened is that, when I nominated it for deletetion, Twinkle tagged the page, and that automatically marked it as reviewed. It does the same if you CSD a page from the NPR panel IIRC. Have a good Friday! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

When I come across pages nominated for deletion that have been reviewed I typically unreview them for that reason (what I said above). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. Sounds like extra work :) but carry on. Fair play on Stiffing It To Spamdexxers, certainly. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: (talk page stalker) When a CSD tag is on a page it gets the __NOINDEX__ added to it automatically. From what I can remember, it's actually better to mark everything you tag for deletion as reviewed so that other users don't need to look at the page too (as presumably you've already reviewed it if you've deemed it deletable). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

NPA

Even though that was probably meant as a joke, it was an NPA vio. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: sorry, could you clarify? What was a personal attack? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that! Well, I got it from Iridescent. I think the point is that he did actually say that, so it's more of a statement of undeniable fact rather than a personal attack. But, yes, it was stil indeed lightheartedly, as you say. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's okay. Lighthearted, but still. No worries. And you got that from Iridescent? Hmmm. I guess because Wales is famous, he's fair game to some. But of course, saying "Princess....Dianna" would upset many. And certainly, nobody would say that about Wales because he had been uncivil to others. That would leave the poster without a leg to stand on. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ping Iridescent, it's habitual. Yeah they mentioned it a while back. Here: 22:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC). — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(TPW, but seeing as I've been mentioned) @Anna Frodesiak, it's not a personal attack to point out that Jimmy Wales's practice/preaches ratio is famously low when it comes to civility. Lest we forget, we're talking about someone who got up on stage at Wikimania and preached a sermon advocating that those he considered "toxic personalities" be kicked out of Wikipedia (anyone who was around at the time is well aware of to whom he was referring), who's admitted in the relatively recent past that he maintains a personal deathlist of editors against whom he has a grudge, and who's uniquely the only admin on Wikipedia who's banned from using the "block" button owing to his use of the tool to further personal disputes. (Technically, he "decided to simply give up the use of the block tool permanently", but that was very much a jumping-before-being-pushed exercise to avoid the negative publicity that would have stemmed from the desysopping that was otherwise inevitable.) If he were a normal editor, he'd have long since been community banned as a crystal-clear example of a WP:NOTHERE tendentious editor. (As a point of reference, these are his last 50 mainspace edits at the time of writing. They stretch back two years, and include outright incompetence like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June Swann.) ‑ Iridescent 14:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)