User talk:Serial Number 54129

Use of the 'Rollback' feature on the English Wikipedia

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

:-)

The wisdom of F.I Mundi. A great summing up. Thanks for the smile and best wishes for your 2017. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for popping over MarnetteD- you know I aim to please! Hope 2017 treats you and yours kindly, whatever crap the next year might be bringing! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For this [1]. I was just looking it over. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, excellent- great minds thinking alike eh! I came to it via the chap who templated you. Bet you feel small now don't you, you IP you!!! I've got rid of most of the junk, and as my last edit-summary says, I attempted the copy-edit, but had to give up. It's a rather bizarre article. I find it hard to imagine it's not A7-worthy actually; what say you? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

PS- do you get pings? (Like above?) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

For some reason the pings haven't been coming through. Which sort of corresponds with getting older and losing one's hearing. I'm uncertain about A7, would need to pore over sources at greater length. Some hits come up on a Google news search, but whether there's enough there to justify an article isn't yet clear to me. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Then again, given this history [2], the lack of views for his Youtube videos, and the persistent re-creation of promotional bios, A7 may be just the thing. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe even WP:CSD#G4 then? It was it's most recent discussion after all... although years ago. Having said that, thanks to me sticking my nose in, I don't suppose it qualifies as 'sufficiently identical' now! The opeing line of the AfD is fundamental though- I have very strong doubts that the curator of one or even many art exhibitions is notable. I don't think much has changed. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how similar it is, given the passage of nearly five years, and that we can't see the previous incarnation. I'd think a second AfD may be better, but who knows. You get a sympathetic admin (cough, cough, Drmies), and it may be speedied in a moment. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Got you. Drmies, did you say....? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, G4 doesn't apply, but A7 does. If that's declined, AfD. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies- does it now not apply due to my changing the article sufficiently to exclude it from the criteria, or, because it was the 'latest' discussion, but 'not the latest deletion? -if you know what I mean. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, their initial version was already different enough, esp. in terms of sources. I think there was some similar phrasing. Might I add that if you're in a deletionist frame of mind I'm not the best admin to ask; I'm on the side of content creation so I take G4 narrowly: it really needs to be the same content and the same (typically poor) sourcing for me to delete via G4. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And as long as you're visiting, Drmies, have a look at Bearden High School (Tennessee), where I fought just to begin clean up on an awful athletics section, and got that accomplished only after hero admin NeilN assisted. The section is still a wreck, but I don't want to go near that article again. Ever. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Not so much deletionist as anti-crap :) Ta for the advice though. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of draft page User:DylanB4/sandbox

Why was there a deletion of the page I created? It was made with referenced facts. No advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanB4 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wry comment(s) re the reference you found ...

Regarding [3], it talks of "Superstars in ... 1985". My God! That's now 30 years ago!! My memories of those guys are as they appear at the top of the page you found ...

Anonymous quote: Don't get old. When you work out how to do this: a) Please tell me how. b) Patent it.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC) (BTW: There's (still) no sign of those statues in the Creswell Gardens ... )

@Pdfpdf: Thirty years ago... woooo I was still reading comics and thoought Bergerac was cutting edge :( like that quote though! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: I went for a wander around the Creswell Gardens and the Adelaide Oval on Saturday. I took LOTS of photos with my phone, some of which I've uploaded to Creswell Gardens.
There was a HUGE, and extremely expensive - Aus$400,000,000 - upgrade (at taxpayer expense) to the Adelaide Oval a few years ago, and the areas closest to the Oval have changed out of all recognition!
It seems that the three promised-30-years-ago statues of the so-called football "heroes" actually do indeed exist - but not in the Creswell Gardens. (They're located south of the Oval.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Bergerac isn't cutting edge? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

First Article and the UI of Wikipedia

Dear Fortuna Imperatrix, I thought the the 'Sandbox' was a draft section of Wikipedia and that clicking the 'Save' icon would save my work as a draft, it was never meant to be public yet, as it needs a lot of editing. I have to say the UI of Wikipedia is one of the clumsy efforts I have ever engaged with, maybe this is some kind of filter or test of the worthy. I think I will stick to peer reviewed papers.

Regards,

Vocational samurai (talk)Vocational samuraiVocational samurai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Vocational samurai, thanks for the message. On the assumption you can find any peer-reviewed journals that would cover that, then you most definitely should. However, the fact remains that WP:NOTWEBHOST means this encyclopaedia is not a personal forum, blog, bulletin board or advertising agency for one's own works, opinions, or general discursions. PS: If you could please sign future messages with '~~~~' (four tildes), that would adhere to policy whilst keeping both me and the bot happy. Happy editing! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Václav Bolemír Nebeský

Thanks for reviewing the article about Václav Bolemír Nebeský. Now it looks much better. I did not intend to write a long article, just some ten lines. As far as I know he is regarded as minor poet in his country. Perhaps now we should expand the article about Karel Hynek Mácha who is considered the greatest Czech poet. (Anagram16 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC))

Return of Veeras Infotek

It appears that you got this page deleted once already. I can't seem to find the discussion page tho. Shall i propose deletion? Arkhaminsanity (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arkhaminsanity:, thanks for the message. Yes I did, and yes, you probably should. I see it was deleted last time as WP:CSD#G1 (advertising) and WP:CSD#A7 (non-notable); although I can't remember how it exactly looked back then, it looks lke it's still those two things :) Good luck! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Showstudio.com

Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Showstudio.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being founded by a notable person indicates significate. Plus there are RS about the subject. Also, I had already declined the speedy once, please do not retag but use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Thank you. SoWhy 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy. Please do not use big bad bold orthography here, my eyesight is fine. Personally I think I second opoinion was probably due (I hadn't noticed the previous speedy). But many thanks for the advice. Take care, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The bold font is just part of the script I use, I can't change that. If you still believe that an article with multiple RS about a subject that was founded by a notable person meets A7, you might want to re-read the criterion's description as well as WP:ATD (and maybe my essay on this topic). Even if the subject weren't notable, policy dictates that it should never be deleted when it can easily be redirected/merged into an article about a notable subject. Regards SoWhy 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A little bit of CDH twinkling would sort that script for you. I note it was also G11. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember, any somewhat-seasoned admin will check if the article meets any (other) criterion before declining a request since it would be pointless to decline a G11 just so the next editor can tag it A7. So rest assured, I checked both when reviewing the first request and you can usually be sure that any other admin will do so as well. On a side note, if one or multiple experienced, non-involved editors edited the page without requesting speedy deletion (like Timothyjosephwood and Mean as custard in this case), it's usually safe to assume that they might object to deletion as well, so I usually will decline any speedy requests for such pages anyway (except when it meets G10 or G12). Last but not least, remember that there is no second opinion when it comes to speedy deletion. Once it has been declined, re-tagging the page might be considered admin shopping (except valid G10 or G12 concerns that the previous admin didn't know about). Regards SoWhy 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your points are, as ever, lucid: it was still an advert though :D O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not blatant enough for G11, at least this revision not. Plus, you demonstrated yourself that a viable stub remains if you remove the spammy bits. Regards SoWhy 17:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, demonstrated that the kernal lacked notability :P On a lighter note, is there a way of comparing the sizes of different page revisions? A good example would be the non-advertorial advert we were discussing ;) but I was actually wanting to compare here between the current stage and this revision. Obviously we can see the differEnce; but size, word-count, length? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Lucky for you that you struck that, otherwise I would have had to lecture you about A7 not being about notability As for the other question, I don't really know any such tool. You could use WP:DYKcheck on both revisions though. Otherwise, maybe WP:US or WP:TOOLS contains such a script/tool? Regards SoWhy 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For my own part, if it had sprung to life in the form I first saw this morning, I would have nominated for G11 myself. Unfortunately, CSD requires that no version of the article's history isn't disqualifying, and with a ten year old article, most of the time I just don't even bother. It's a better use of time to reduce to a stub than sort through every reversion in the article history. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy and Timothyjosephwood: Mea culpa, please accept my apologies for wasting your time. I have to admit that, thinking it was a new article (started by the then-blocked Mustardcreams editor), I didn't check the history. I always look for BEFORE; and also the history, but in this case I slipped up. Ten years old! There's no way I would normally nominate that either. Sorry about that. PS: new question above  :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Time spent learning is never wasted. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool guy dat :) he made 'wet-on-wet' popular before it sounded fetishistic... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Article has been copied

Hello fortuna. I found out that Bethany High has almost entirely been copied from Bethany official website . This article was once considered for deletion due to its notability. Because of this, i am confused as to what my next step should be.
hope you don't mind me popping in here every few days asking doubts

Cheers,

Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Arkhaminsanity: I've put the 'Earwig' copyright violation detector on your userpage with your other list of tools, hope you don't mind that. It is a useful and easy to use tool for detecting things like that. Now, funnily, if we run the Bethany High page through Earwig, the result is [4]- a 2% 'unlikely' result. How did you work out it was copied though? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I simply copied some of the article and plugged it into google. Search results show the wiki page and the official website. The text was in bold and when i compared the two pages, i realized they were the same. The tool you mentioned doesn't seem to detect that. I'm even moreconfused now. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of it was copied from here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN- presumably that text is within frames or something. Mind you, I've had more obvious copyvios not picked up by earwig recently so maybe there's an issue? In any case, feel free to advise Arkhaminsanity on the matter as I am currently working on two articles atm :p ;) You would surely be doing me a solid :D O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to close this, I've removed the copyvios and revdelled all the article versions containing them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that x99. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please answer my questions.

On my talk page under where it says your warning, I replied to it and they are questions on there that I would like to be answered. It would be respectable if you do. Thanks

--Mi600740 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 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…
49		Anne Stafford, Countess of Huntingdon (talk)	Add sources
40		Baron Stafford (talk)	Add sources
25		Laheriasarai (talk)	Add sources
236		Darbhanga (talk)	Add sources
28		Baidyanath Group (talk)	Add sources
84		Rahim Yar Khan District (talk)	Add sources
85		Graeme Clark (doctor) (talk)	Cleanup
28		Maulana Azad College (talk)	Cleanup
101		Linamar (talk)	Cleanup
36		Ekal Vidyalaya (talk)	Expand
18		1460s (talk)	Expand
141		Trams in Kolkata (talk)	Expand
16		Rose Public School (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
64		Human rights abuses in Kashmir (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
18		John Blake (journalist) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3		Sundarpur, Darbhanga, Bihar (talk)	Merge
184		Neuroprosthetics (talk)	Merge
296		Feluda (talk)	Merge
10		Dil Bhusan Pathak (talk)	Wikify
335		Celebrity Cricket League (talk)	Wikify
13		Tehreek-e-Hurriyat (talk)	Wikify
7		Joel J. Horowitz (talk)	Orphan
5		Ratna Pustak Bhandar (talk)	Orphan
4		Philipos C. Loizou (talk)	Orphan
11		Tollygunge Agragami F.C. (talk)	Stub
8		Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland (talk)	Stub
88		Chandni Chowk metro station, Delhi (talk)	Stub
20		Anne de Beauchamp, 15th Countess of Warwick (talk)	Stub
22		Dover Lane Music Conference (talk)	Stub
23		Loreto Schools, Kolkata (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) 12:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Second eye..

Would you mind taking a look at the numerous Asana articles contributed by MilenaGlebova1989.I don't think they are of any independent notability and probably was fit enough to be just mentioned at List of asanas.(The same query was also put forward prev. by another editor and he/she prob. did not reply.)Any advice/help will be appreciated.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Well spotted. At first glance- I'd say you're probably right. Most if not all the sourcing is WP:PRIMARY, with the odd mention in a paper, etc., here and there- but that might lack WP:DEPTH. And as you say, they pretty much duplicate info either in the List of asanas, or could be. It'll be a (Redacted) load of PRODS though ;) and a poor translation isn't really a reason for deletio in itself (see WP:ATD-T). In any case I'm not competent to judge; it's certainly better than my sanskrit. But the purpose of these articles, according to this, goes against an awful lot of WP:WPNOT; WP:NOTDIRECTORY AND WP:NOTGUIDE spring to mind. A previous attempt to discuss this this with the editor, which you noted went unreplied to, was by the august User:Cyphoidbomb, before their elevation . Let us summon them now... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what to do here. Does this require a wider discussion? Most of the ones I saw were just cookie-cutters with no clear independent notability as Godric notes. They could all be redirected back to the main list or something. That's gonna be a ton of work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Mate, I was expecting you to arrive, leaping tall buildings in a single bound, etc  ;) and sort it with a wave of the magic wand! But seriously- is it the quality of the articles that intimates a need for community discussion, or just the quantity of them? If we took it to AN/I, we would get not oly consensus (hopefully!) one way or the other, but also more volunteers to make the redirects. Thoughts? thanks for reply, btw. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hah, wish I were that skilled... If this were one article, I'd probably just redirect it, and I suppose it's just "one article" a hundred times, but I think I'd personally feel better getting some more input, and then, yeah, some extra help on the redirects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree: it would be better to fireproof it first. I'm more-or-less signing off for the night now, though, so won't be able to initiate much until tomorow (GMT). PS, actually Cyphoidbomb a 158 times *help!*  ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh shit, there was a SECOND page?! Wow. Although some of them aren't asanas... We should probably make that clear. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also, aren't some of the sources in List of asanas rather non-WP:RSsy? Not my field, not even close, so I can't really say what a reliable source for a yoga pose would be, but several of those look pretty spammy to me. --bonadea contributions talk 21:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was wading through a majority of the Asana related articles and thought to ask whether some script/automation would manage to make a mass redirect of the spinoffs to the parent page. But those 4 on the 2nd page are prob. going to be a headache.Any thoughts on starting an AN/I thread and listen to as well as get help from more hands on the issue?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Cyphoidbomb: Had forgotten we came to a local consensus about ANI- so doing it right now. Stand by... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No qualms! Winged Blades ^Godric 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• To watchers If I've missed anone, it's here. Not exactly Watergate, but with more WP:AGF and less Haldeman... ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Well, I think the discussion at WP:ANI is stale(Surp. it failed to attract a single participant save our's three!) and that it would be prudent to slowly delve in the mass redirection of those articles without hoping for some magic-script/advice to come to our help and take the burden off our back.How do ya feel?Winged Blades ^Godric 13:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric: Yeah I think yer right. We certainly didn't establish a consensus against our proposal anyway :) yo, Cyphoidbomb, any objections 'administrationally' to our getting on with the redirects? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. The user who created the articles has been notified of this discussion and has edited since the notification. If they aren't compelled to respond, I don't know why anyone else should be. What remains is the divvying of the workload. I don't have tons of time to devote to editing in general lately, but I could commit to taking the last 52, so #106-#158, reviewing them and redirecting them. Might take me a few days. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to us Cyphoidbomb; right, How about we do ~50 each? -but on the proviso that if you want to drop it, due to RL / mop duties, we can pick up the slack? I'm sure @Winged Blades of Godric: won't mind; he hasn't been jaded yet  ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've given Milena another invitation to discuss. Let's wait a day or so before moving forward. This is the sort of thing that could really put someone off Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to lend a hand with the reviewing/redirecting as well, if necessary. --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:NODEADLINE applies; and thanks very much Bonadea, that'll be great. *sneeks off to make sure B. gets all the hard ones* O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I saw that! --bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

With B. coming to our help, I would propose each of us four, taking about 40 each. I won't mind taking 1-40 of M. G's contrib. list. And well, we could wait for another day or so per Cyphoidbomb.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Cyphoidbomb, and Bonadea:--May we begin?Winged Blades ^Godric 17:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Sure, I'm in. It is lateish here so I won't start until tomorrow, but save 41-80 for me. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done--My part/responsibility is completed.:)Winged Blades ^Godric 13:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, the number- excluding Blades' redirects already done- seems to have increased. Bizarre.

Yo, Snow Rise. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:--Actually, I did 35 redirects to be precise.Now before our intervention by some reason/other he has himself redirected 17 of his pages to diff. venues.(Thus net redirects=35+17=52).The total of 158 that came up in our discussion was minus the initial 17 redirects.Hope this explains the increase.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric Excellent, that makes sense, cheers, I don't know why I pinged SnoWRise back there. Must've been thinking of someone else. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:---Well, I thought that the prev. line(Oddly....) was prob. written by Snow(and unsigned) to which you responded.And accordingly I made my reply.That's what we call Propagation of errors!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through. I've found that there were already a number of articles about asanas which to my mind violate both WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:MEDICAL, with very poor sourcing to boot, e.g. Virabhadrasana I... but I'm not going to try to enlarge the cleanup effort, that way madness lies. At least the set of articles created by this user is very straightforward in that there's a cookie-cutter template and all the content that might be salvaged is already in List of asanas. --bonadea contributions talk 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea and Winged Blades of Godric: Ye, that simplifies things a bit. Now; in the context of me actually doing something ('I mean gettting things done, Basil, as opposed to arguing with the guests...') wot are my numbers again...? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:---Well, you take 81-120 in the original list 98-138 55-91 in this list.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I'm sorry, I think I borked the numbering by not using the right list. It's so obvious now. I've seen the light. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Phew. Looking at all those images of people in various poses gave me a sympathetic backache! (And I am even more convinced that this was part of a walled garden around Mr. Yoga. Some of the articles had two or three different references to his book and website). --bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Right... there's a few left for Cyphoidbomb when he returns from the lofty heights of running the place <g>, but apart from them, that, as they say, is that. Classic clip, Bonadea :D O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Your GA nomination of Bonville-Courtenay feud

The article Bonville-Courtenay feud you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bonville-Courtenay feud for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilverplateDelta -- SilverplateDelta (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Uh Legobot? Last edit to the GA has been January 13. Why this formatting? Ping Legoktm. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yo DatGuy, thanks for that. Look at where Legobot put the notice [5] before I moved it. Although the barnstar did not have it's brackets closed properly; maybe that was why? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And I've written whole articles since then. I don't know why I keep forgetting about this one- it keeps flying under the radar... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The misformatting of the links is nothing to do with the unclosed barnstar; see User talk:Legobot#Misconversion of diacritics. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, DatGuy: this edit will not have notified Legoktm (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: You are so on the ball, it's incredible. But thanks very much for the info: I assumed that, if it was between me and the bot to mess it up, it would be me! :D cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A lame question...

I think you were the user who accepted World Development Foundation from AFC and main-spaced it.But in a current deletion discussion, you not only stood for it's deletion but also supported a speedy.Just thinking about what prompted the change, when the content did not alter much throughout the years?Or I'm wrong somewhere?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S:--I know the acceptance of the draft was long back!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Godric: Well spotted :) I certainly think I'm more right now than I was then. The answer though, I think, is here... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well as it is said--Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.No doubt!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly...

Why does Curator even have an option to prod things in userspace if it's not eligible. I didn't even think to check. I figured it was tailored to the namespace since the CSD criteria available were. That's dumb. TimothyJosephWood 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You're dead right, TJW, it's happened to me in other places (webhost for drafts, maybe?) sorry about that though, not trying to show you up! Well, showing the curator up I s'pose... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I feel like this may have happened to me once before, and it's rare enough where I suspect I will probably forget and make the same mistake again before too long. TimothyJosephWood 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

o/

Hey FIM, just working through your excellent-as-always reports to UAA and noticed this tag. Just thought I'd drop you a line letting you know that I've declined it only because the page had previous history (ie. a CSD notice) that ideally we'd like to keep. Instead, I've removed the promotional text :-) I've also blocked the editor and deleted their page. Keep up the good work! -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 08:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You've gotta earn yer pay when I'm around <g> On a serious note, many thanks Samtar for catching that, and the reminder, which never hurts. Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 08:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 18 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)

Request for guide

Sir, I started a sandbox but you added tag for speedy deletion. Can you pls tell me if I can work two sandbox together of one by one? If possible to work on more then one sandbox then can you pls tell me how did you make this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi/Sandbox_III It will be helpful to me, Thanks. --HM Ashik Ch (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

New user; first edit is creating a .css page plus script

.has page: [6], contribs [ Special:Contributions/Liuyufu1928374 ]

Talkback

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 15:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dewritech (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello FIM. I wanted to let you know that you forgot to sign your post here Sinebot may get to it but I wanted to let you know about it just in case. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Sig Stalker ;) much appreciated, though. Hope you're well! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Things are ok - a little light snow here but that suits my ageing back just fine :-) I hope you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 15:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Walter Pardon

Thanks for your review - I appreciate the feedback. I started writing articles about English folk music recently - my article about Walter Pardon was the first I've tried about a person.

I appreciate too your comment about references - however..... The youtube reference was to a video that I can't trace any information about, but it clearly exists. It contains interviews from people who knew WP and footage of the village he lived in, and I thought it relevant. Should I have left it out?

Are sleeve notes acceptable references? I've got some books, and there are some good sources available as ebooks, but sleeve notes written by experts seem to me as reputable as any other.

Best wishes, Joe Fogey (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Class?

User:Weiran Wang/sandbox‎, User:Adxg2/sandbox‎, User:Lanjingjng/sandbox‎, User:Kim Fu‎, User:Tingting0506‎, User:Bsck1218/sandbox‎, User:Ran Cheng0728/sandbox. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Second eyes....I'm back....

Can you spare some of your time to take a look at the contrib. of a supposedly overenthusiastic museum-man who feels every damn object they have in their museum deserves a listing at Wikipedia. Probably they desire WP to serve a catalogue of the museum!.

The Galileo's finger is a different obejct (it has its own area of the museum) and I mean it deserve a different page of Wikipedia--was what he put forward when another editor questioned his mass article creation How's about mass-prodding the biographies?

Any thoughts will be appreciated.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Glancing through almost every article contributed by the user, I can't help but quote Bonadea---This is a walled garden around Museo Galileo.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, in a way there is. But they haven't created any articles since 25 Oct last year, after that conversation you point to. So: pinging Hammersoft, Tom.Reding, Chiswick Chap, who probably already have views on this matter and whose input here would be welcome. Cheers, Blades. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they were probably employed by said museum, created a pile of steaming good-stuff, took wages and pushed off down the pub (or near offer). We can and should shovel up as much of it as possible; one or two were worth saving, if I recall, most should become redirects at best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:--While most of the museum object could be redirected at ease the problem lies with the several biographies created by the user.How to proceed with them?Winged Blades ^Godric 12:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't come across any of those, but the answer is the usual one - if obviously not notable, try a WP:PROD; if notable, add reliable sources; if doubtful, have a go at sourcing, and if no good, WP:AFD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think the plan here sounds fine. Yes, the editor was working on behalf of the museum. He was a Wikipedian in residence. I felt bad about halting him. I wanted him to work with us, but he basically vanished after being asked about it. Yes, the museum exists. Yes, some of its exhibits might be notable. For others, perhaps a listing of some of them on the museum's article, but not independent articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Hammersoft, Tom.Reding, and Chiswick Chap:---Your comments/!votes are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilean compound microscope.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And I have mass-nominated several articles of the user at AFD.Check his talk page.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have much time to look into @Archeologo (Museo Galileo):'s contributions since @Hammersoft: and I tried to give AMG some direction. I do think the best way to handle it would be to read over AMG's "articles" and any new information contained in them should be subsumed into their corresponding actual articles, then #R'd.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned this slew of silly stubs at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History_of_Science#Museo_Galileo_stubs, which is where anyone likely to be interested might see it. I've rescued John Cuff (optician), who is in ODNB and umpteen museum collections, and clearly notable, and have also added project banners (Hist Sci, Measurement, Bio where appropriate) onto the talk pages of ... well a rather random subset, the ones mentioned on his/her talk page either as PRODs, AfDs, or "linking to dab pages". Such a shame for a lot of editing energy (and, presumably, museum money) to produce such a lot of rubbish. I tried to help: User_talk:Archeologo_(Museo_Galileo)#Please_learn_the_basics. PamD 10:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that PamD- I'm sure your efforts are appreciated, if only by us! And I agree that perhaps the spirit of clearing the Augean Stables has been over zealously applied ;) there must be a few things that have atttained an historical notability, although I admit to not having gone through his whole contributions. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Problems_with_edit-a-thons refers to a deletion spree against topics created by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museo Galileo. - you might like to chip in there! PamD 11:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I just discovered that the text at Arab celestial globe was a direct copyvio of the text in the museum's website. Unless there's some general grant of CC-by-SA access to their text, it may well be that all or many of the articles are copyvios. I've redirected the globe to the museum article and saved the image in the gallery there (and added captions, sigh). It does look as though we have grounds for a major cleanup, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Chiswick Chap; the same applied to e.g. Thunder house. And their copyright statement simply says, © 2016 Museo Galileo, which is not too hopefull. I think G12 probably applies. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Then CSD G12 will apply to many of the articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that there are OTRS tickets! see e.g. the one at Talk:Luminous discharge tubes which reads " The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Museo Galileo. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2016062110008037. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission." - probably there are lots of these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bloody good spot, Chiswick Chap. And, as well, there are some that actually aren't very violating as well (e.g., Galileo's objective lens, which material is mostly a quotation. Standing by. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Lucky I'd only done three! :) I assume they're all like that- will check. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

They've all got OTRS tickets - problem is that he didn't make any effort to adapt the text of the museum catalogue entries to suit an international encyclopedia. PamD 17:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The House in Turk Street, ???Kingshowman???

Greetings. First, I changed the name for the Dashiell Hammett short story toThe House in Turk Street. You can go to Amazon and check it out for yourself. Please read the Talk page.

Second, did you really write "Kingshowman was da man! Maestro!" @ User talk:Kingshowman on 16 January 2016? Tapered (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And nine-times greeting too you, Tapered. Pace your personal knowledge of Hammett, a modern edition would indeed pamper to the modern myopia; but every source I cited for the article that discusses the piece in detail refers- you've guessed it- to the house being on, not in. A point I will repeat on the talk page, prior to moving the article back.

As for kingshowman, in his early work his orthography and textual scanscion could indeed be delightful. Unfortunately he sacrificed originality and precision for bitterness and envy with every sock created.

Thanks for checking in. Take care! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read Talk page before reverting. Tapered (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't my personal knowledge. I was holding the book in my hand. Tapered (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your 'personal knowledge' referenced "Hammett is one of my favorite authors, and ever since I read the story." Unfortunately, btw, your talk page 'evidence' is unconvincing. And in some cases curiously opaque. I'll let you know when I get around to moving the page back. Cheers! Take care, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The published title is "The House in Turk Street." Are you saying that if enough people describe it as "The House on Turk Street," that Wikipedia should list it as such? Tapered (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In 1974? Or 1924? Bear, please in the front of your mind, that we are now fully invested in WP:BRD; the article was created; you were bold; what happens next ;) Cheers though, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To address 1924, that title wasn't on the front cover of Black Mask, and no search has brought up any images of content at all. Do you know who Lillian Hellman was—her American literary standing and reputation, or her relationship with Hammett? A book with her name on it as executrix means it was well vetted for accuracy, especially if it concerns Hammett in any way. Tapered (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes; opaque. WP:BRD will doubtless assist us; how about a RfC? What say ye? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Do it, please. Tapered (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Imperatrix mundi On quick further reflection, I prefer Mediation for this. Tapered (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

So good they named me thrice ;) well, we can come to this I think. Negotiations haven't yet broken down completely! PS, no need to ping me on my own talk page- let alone give me an edit conflict by doing so! ;) Hope all's well, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to make very sure the message got through, pronto. Tapered (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright infringment in Access to pubblic information in Serbia

Thanks for pointing out the misuse of copyrighted material in the article I created on Access to Information in Serbia. I already modified the text accordingly. Would it be possibile to remore the template? Thanks Marzia Bona (OBC) (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marzia Bona (OBC): Yeah it's better. Thanks for that! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Assistance

I have sent you an email for assistance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioDPW (talk • contribs) 08:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this BioDPW; I have only just seen this as new messages are customarily placed at the bottom of talk pages, not the top (See: WP:TALKNEW). Also, could you please sign your messages with four tildes- as in, ~~~ (See: WP:~). Many thanks for your email. Unfortunately I am unable to check them for some hours; in any case, openness and transparency of discussion are preferred here (See: WP:EMAIL). Unfortunately the existance of other articles in comparison with your own is irrelevant, regardless of their quality (See: WP:OSE). Both your article and its user page copy violate Wikipedia's code regarding printing editing (See: WP:PROMO), and as such are liable to summary speedy deletion (See: WP:CSD#G11). It is probably also profitable to draw your attention to the policy regarding conflicts of interest (See:WP:COI) and being remunerated for editing here (See:WP:UPE). I will now move this discussion to the bottom of this page as I mentioned above (See: WP:TPO). I'll also ping (See: WP:PING) Jimfbleak as the deleting (See: WP:DUDE) administrator in your case (See: WP:ADMIN). Thanks for your message. All the best, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. As for using wiki sources as a tool was a simple way to get started to see how other articles are presented on wiki and the use of external sources (external links), hence the reason the article was built in the same fashion as the one I have studied. As I'm new to this and in the early stage of learning my way around wiki I could really use some help for my first article. I have tried to be as transparent with the material presented in my article, not using single source material but several and not trying to promote but to present information relevant to a person - I.e. If an actor or an actress appears in a movie you mention the name of the movie but leaving the focus on the person - meaning that the movie is not being promoted but you are simply providing information regarding the person that appeared in a movie. I was trying to do the same - Not promoting but simply providing information regarding a person. I hope this makes sense. I'm looking forward to any help (not links) I can receive in order to honour wiki policies but also to have my first article on wiki. I have tagged Jimfbleak and RHaworth as the pages was deleted by "wiki admin". BioDPW (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) (Don't know if I have signed it correctly)

@BioDPW: WP:N applies. It s fundamental.

Also you should not create articles about subjects with which you have a close connection. We have a saying: 'If you're notable, someone will write about you.' Now; it is somewhat lacking in scanscion, but the princciple is that, if one is notable to Wikipedia standards, then someone, somewhere, at sometime, will notice- and write about them. Ta, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Noted BioDPW (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Fenn (died 1409)

Many thanks for your kind words. The intricate political, financial, commercial, territorial and marital links of the more notable inhabitants of the medieval and early modern British Isles can be a fascinating subject, but for many there is either no Wikipedia article or one of dubious quality. Nice to know that one small effort is appreciated!

Clifford Mill (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Biowriteruk

Thanks for your help with this. I've occasionally blocked people for telling porkies about paid editing, and I've frequently had to post a reminder, but I don't think I've ever had anyone just take no notice at all. I didn't realise quite how many times he had been warned until I totted up, I must be getting soft. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Happens to the best of us you ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, was I wrong to tag this? Appreciate the advice. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

Mabalu (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Mabalu: When I checked it, it had 2.9% copyvio. Insufficient to get one's knickers in a twist over. And you have slightly more work yet to do, as the aforementioned copyvio now stands at an unwhopping 14%. Many thanks for your message though. Ta ta :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Still working through that article, but thank you so much for your immensely sweet, super-helpful, phenomenally helpful response, I don't know how I could ever possibly have continued editing Wikipedia without such outstanding words of wisdom and encouragement. Mabalu (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Or without the page-curation tool to send your messages, I suppose. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously though, that Earwig thing really looks like a great tool, so thanks for the link. I also didn't think a flag would come up on your talk page if it was just a simple comment-free unreviewing, as so often these pages get "reviewed" when speedied or nominated or templated, and then when the info is removed, they stay "reviewed" when they shouldn't be. Mabalu (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mabalu; apologies for the shortness earlier. Yes, Earwig is a great timesaver, but it's worth trusting your instincts with. It doesn't always pick out everything, as that article demonstrates. Nice content work too, btw. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:49, 3 March 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: [7]. 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[8][9] 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[10][11] per WP:SOCK, as well as being harassed by the IP editor.[12][13][14]. 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)