User talk:Serial Number 54129

Put Paid To Paid Editing

This user is a participant in WikiProject Spam.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [1], [2], [3], [4]). 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 [5]). 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,[6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [7]- 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.[8] 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 [9] 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,[10] 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.[11] The only thing he did post was a blatantly incorrect and rude claim as though I had not made any proposals,[12] to which I later replied with a diff proving him wrong.[13] 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)

@Anarchyte: Oh, I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know, I will leave them marked as reviewed when nominating for deletion (or seeing ones marked for deletion) from now on. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:43, 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. (As FIM has already pointed out, "Utter fucking bullshit" is a direct quote.) 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)

Clarification

Good afternoon, Fortuna. Just to clarify, was Coffee warned about his actions before his personal attacks were brought to ANI? Thank you. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 08:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Morning, FriyMan :) Well, that all seems like a lifetime ago now. But yes, Amortias left this on his talk; it was about half-hour? before the admin board was filed. Have a goodweekend, what's left of it. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. Another question: what was the name of the editor who received a 3 month block for personally attacking someone? I believe he was mentioned on an ANI thread you participated in. Thanks. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 16:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't going in the Admin Newsletter is it? The other editor was User:Cassianto, who I am sure will give you an interview if you ask nicely  ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, Fortuna. I would have liked to propose the limits for NPA blocks, because they drive people off. As stated in the policy itself, "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment." I believe, that a 3 month block is too much for a preventive block. Would you agree? Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 16:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, a proposal like that does you credit- it's the ultimate in good faith! Clearly, in that case, I did think it excessive. But, and I think most involved parties would agree, it arose out of a very particular (and therefore uncommon) set of circumstances- it was, in fact, a somewhat out of the ordinary affair, at the time. More generally though, FriyMan, and to answer your actual question, it's worth remembering that a block doesn't automatically become 'punitive' just because the behaviour has ceased (after all, ofen it will have been the block itself which has achieved that!); rather, it could be preventing re-occurance. And in certain (admittedly quite extreme) circumstances, if the personal attacks are seen as likely to be interminable, and enough editors' time and patience has already been devoted to them, then I could see a NPA indef being very likely. And indefinite, as we are repeatedly reminded, does not mean inffinite, so it could be lifted the moment reassurances are given and accepted. If I could consider one problem your proposed proposal might encounter, it's that the community will probably resist anything that ties its hands, or restricts potential courses of action. What I mean is, is that, in a very small minority of cases, your proposal would stop the community from 'bettering the encyclopaedia'- in their eyes, anyway!

Even so, go for it. It will be interesting to see what is said, and your motives are undoubtedly good- that'll go a long way. And, thinking about it, I'm not sure I can remember the last time I saw an indefinite block solely on account of personal attacks; but I don't follow ANI closely, so it could be more common than I think, perhaps. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Many NPA blocks don't reach ANI. They're levied against new editors who are reported to AIV. I have no qualms about indeffing a editor showing up spewing racist and sexist epithets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; I wasn't thinking of that kind of thing, but, of course, it's the most obvious form. I was considering- in the context of FriyMan's question- a situation involving personal insults between seasoned editors, rather than your run-off-the mill AIV vandals/arseholes such as you describe. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocks have long been used as a punitive measure rather than a preventative one. In the case of Coffee it was used, in my opinion, as a strong message that administrators are not above anyone else and any PAs dished out by them will not be tolerated. I only wish this was consistent across the board as there seem to be many other admins who flout the rules and manage get away with it. Which leads me nicely onto Amortias. Having acknowledged his cock up, he stated that he would be apologising to me for his block. Did he? No. He didn't. That's not the kind of behaviour that is consistent with the bullshit peddled during his RfA. Cassianto^Talk 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, how about if I make a proposal like this: "All of the NPA blocks should be no longer than 1 week, besides blocks that fall under WP:NOTHERE"? By the way, 1 week is just an example and might chage. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 16:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: You should be aware that NOTHERE is a controversial block reason among some editors. Also, how do you deal with repeat offenders? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @NeilN: blocking after ten and a half hours have passed is also controversial to some editors. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeaaaaahh.... which is why I offered AN is it's second seriously iffy block in the last five weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FriyMan, in the case you were asking about, the 3 month block was determined to be excessive at ANI and was overturned after 2 days. And the other party, the administrator, was blocked for a week, later reduced to 48 hours. With that said, I don't think you will find agreement for any kind of limitation on the length of blocks for personal attacks. Each case is unique and blocking admins need to have their options open; for example, someone with a lengthy block log for PA and a pattern of continuing PAs after blocks expire will certainly get blocks of increasing length, and could eventually be indeffed. Admins are expected to use their judgment on the length of a block, based on their experience, and of course subject to review in case they violate community norms. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

All right NeilN, you convinced me. Let's try it this way: "The first personal attack block should be not longer than 1 week with succeeding blocks being increasingly lengthy. This applies, unless a user is clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia." What do you think of that? Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

FriyMan Two issues. 1) "The first personal attack block should be not longer than 1 week..." How many first PA blocks are longer than one week? If you can't give an estimate, people are going to ask why this is even needed. See WP:CREEP. 2) "succeeding blocks being increasingly lengthy" Not necessarily. If someone got a PA block five years ago, let's not hold that up as a "pattern". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for reviewing my page 2010 Dera Ismail Khan bombing. Your appreciation means a lot to me. Amirk94391 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review

Greetings Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! I am sorry that I didn't reply, rather I couldn't. I got into a little accident and was not able to type. But now I can do fine with my left at least. I would like to offer my sincere apologies for the unresponsiveness. Cheers, — Yash ^talk stalk 06:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all Yash, I'm very sorry to hear you weren't well. But as long as you're OK now, that's the main thing! Take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again

Asana edit warrior is back with a new user name.... I've tried to treat them as a good-faith newbie against all common sense (seriously, what brand-new editor uses "undo" to revert a redir in their FIRST edit?) but now they are starting shenanigans. Just a heads-up. Also @Winged Blades of Godric:. --bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bonadea- keeping my peepers peeled. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!Bonadea--Setting up my watch with immediate effect.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Echoes Cover addition request

Hello, you recently reverted one of my edits for it being "unsourced" and "unnecessary". I fail to see how it is unsourced since I included a reference. I also fail to see how it is unnecessary since it is a valid cover version that garnered lots of attention. How does it compare with the other Echoes cover that is currently in the "Cover Versions" section? If more sources are required then where do I post them? WisemanOnceSaid (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo WisemanOnceSaid, sorry for the delay, and sincerest apologies for casting the aspersion that you inserted unsourced material. But, over all, WP:MUSICBIO applies; basically the same criteria that is required for an article to survive deletion is the same criteria that allows its insertion elsewhere. Hope that helps! Take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

New User - advertising/promotional purpose

Hi, you flagged an edit I made (on Utility location) as advertising / promotional, however I can't see where I advertised or promoted anything at all. I added accurate information about the situation in the UK and added a citation to a government agency which supports what I added. I want to stay within the guidelines, and I have stated my affiliation on my user page. Can you please be more specific about what you think I have done that's inappropriate?

Many thanks, Tony Tonyrush (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tonyrush, thanks for the message. Unfortunately, no, I can't be more specific, due to the fact that I have never edited that particular article, and, indeed, until you did yesterday it hadn't been edited since November last year.

However, I did just remove a small but slightly spammy addition to your talk page. Please see the page 'WP:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?' for more information. Nothing personal against your good self, you understand. Incidentally, and more generally speaking, you might wish to provide your edits with a reliable source- it's a fundamental requirement, and without them, material is liable to be summarily removed. Take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fortuna, in that case, I don't understand why you said it contained advertising or promotion - it doesn't. In addition, I did provide a reliable source in the citation. I'm thoroughly confused by your comments - they seem to be at odds with the facts.

Your edit to my Talk page removed my affiliation, calling it 'slightly spammy'. However in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest it recommends making any affiliations clear.

I've tried to be completely open and honest and I really don't understand your comments. With your edits, there is now no disclosure that I'm associated with my employer. Tonyrush (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The link to your place of business is clearly unsuitable. And I see you added a reference some moments later, apologies. But note that the HSE is a primary source; more details can be found at WP:PST. Also, if you feel you have a conflict of interest (you clearly do feel that, of course) then, as you know, you shouldn't really edit the article itself, but make your additions to the article talk page, for consideration. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mindhorn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cameos (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) 09:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Your username/signature

Just noticed your post on KGirltrucker81's talk page in response to mine, and took note of your signature. By an odd coincidence, I happen to be performing that piece this weekend! (Perhaps not so odd coincidence -- it is an oft-performed (maybe overperformed?) piece!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: That Sounds Fantastic. May I ask- in the eye of WP:OUTING, of close- of your role in the performance? It's still a coincidence though- compared to say this?- CB is probably crumbs. Although I understand it's even getting flashmobed nowadays! Holy Orff! Thanks for the message- that's really cool. Not often this page gets to bask in the (admittedly second hand) glow of the footlights ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My role in the performance is third tenor from the right. Small beans. But fun to sing! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Or as I described you to her indoors: 'He's one of the three blokes at the front'

Her: 'That's important, isn't it, compared to all them people at the back'

Hah! Blooming proles! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A first

And probably the last time I'll ever revert you. At your own talk page, yet. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. And glad you did! Replied on your talk. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elias Beckingham

The article Elias Beckingham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elias Beckingham 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, it looks like you didn't check to see how {{DYK checklist}} is supposed to be used, because if you'll look at the result of what you did, practically every entry has a red "X" next to it, and that means it failed that particular criterion. Please go back and fill it out properly; most of the fields take "y" or "n" or some other character or word. You should generally only write information in a field if it's an "other" field or the final "comment" field; otherwise, using other than an "y" means there is a problem. Please see the documentation at Template:DYK checklist/doc, which explains how to fill it out the template for DYK.

Alternatively, you could simply write out the results in prose, starting with the overall result icon. Please fix this as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So it defaults to fail, does it? That seems a curious proposition (except for railway signalling, of course). It would help if that was slightly more obvious on the reviewing page. It is arcane to say the least that 'someone doesn't know' that not failing each category... Will fail each category. Hey Ho. Thanks for the note in any case. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 22:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Brut Chronicle

Fantastic new article! I was just wondering, I thought I would merge some of your apparent duplicate references (especially the many Andreas and Antonias), but then noticed that they all had different ref names, so thought I should check in, as I can see from the Szarmach cite that you definitely know how to use ref names, to see what you were going to do before I started fixing something that may not be an error. Mabalu (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Mabalu, thanks very much for the kind words! Look, those refs have been a pain in my posterior since the beigning :) (in fact refs often are!)- so if you can do it, that would be great, and appreciated. The only reason I haven't done it myself is that I already Refilled them once, but all that seem to do it actially make some of them invisible in the reflist (you'll see it in the history). So I ended up inputing them manually. I didn't dare refill again in case the blooming things disappeared1 But I'm sure you can do a proper job, so go ahread! cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been sorted out! Hope all is in order. Do let me know if you need help in future with similar issues. Mabalu (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's great stuff Mabalu (I keep starting to type malibu!)- I'm sure I will, and thanks for the offer. Have a good evening. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Affinity (medieval)

On 4 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Affinity (medieval), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in late 14th-century England, John of Gaunt built up a massive affinity of supporters which his son Henry later used as an army to depose King Richard II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Affinity (medieval). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Affinity (medieval)), 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) 05:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello, I'm Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That's you told. ‑ Iridescent 12:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't me! Ho ho ho :) i forgot to delete this. I wanted to find the template for spam, but forgot it would transclude. I'll just have to give up my UPE-business devoted to promoting the medieval gentry :D I've made two groats and a duck's egg so far Found what I wanted ...eventually. Thanks for the reminder! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I was accused of being a spammer for Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball—in the current climate of paranoia, don't underestimate just how enthusiastic the self-appointed COI witchhunters can be. If you haven't already seen it, this thread is something of an eye-opener for just how wide a range the ToU hardliners consider "spam" (Hex Enduction Hour, History of York City F.C., The Good Terrorist, Rejoined…). ‑ Iridescent 12:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Exactly how does one promte a 170-year-old painting??? Hex Enduction Hour on the other hand... tweaking WP is probably all the PR Mark E. Smith can afford! Ha! In any case, I prefer Perverted by Language, which makes me totally NPOV. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait! You mean I can avoid main page day for "my" FAs by getting some sort of "commercial" tie somewhere in them??? QUICK! I must do this somehow! (snorts). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I reckon you could've plugged eyedrops in the Battle of Hastings somewhere  ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's really interesting - this led me to a rule that you can have slightly larger lede images in painting articles, so I have just done this same fix on a Turner article I reviewed yesterday. Good to know. Thanks Iridescent! Mabalu (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "how does one promote a 170-year-old painting", the argument is that by potentially generating interest in a particular artwork, people might go to see it who wouldn't otherwise have done so, and that means the article is "commercial". Ealdgyth, I guarantee that the lunatic fringe of the TOU police would consider Battle of Hastings "spam"—you are clearly employed by the tourist board of either Battle, Bayeux or Westminster, or at a push Reading. If you read the thread I link above, you'll see people arguing quite seriously that Wikipedia's articles on Rihanna songs should be banned from appearing on the main page as they're clearly produced by her PR department (obviously, this internationally-famous celebrity who's rarely out of the newspapers is desperate for the 20,000 pageviews a typical TFA generates). If you want to hear the real buzzing of bees in bonnets, read the threads this search generates.

My views on The Fall are already on record; they rigidly alternate good and bad albums across their entire career, with the bad albums uniformly terrible and the good ones getting steadily better until peaking with Shift-Work (IMO one of the finest albums ever recorded) and getting steadily worse ever since. ‑ Iridescent 23:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit to a liking for quite a bit of Levitate and Imperial Wax Solvent (whilst generally agreeing with you). I'm going to see them in a couple of weeks time (for the first time in, oh, 15 years?), should be interesting... Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's as clear as just alternative albums; I think it goes 9or rather, went) in groups of good (great?) albums interspersed with near-mediocrity. The problem is that in the late nieties (I suggest) the periods of near-mediocrity began outspacing the quality output. So now, they something great every now and again, whereas back in the day it was the norm. I mean the 70s / 80s is dottled with occasional dumbassery, but usually just the odd song (can't think of one!) but by the 90s... Marshall Suite, anyone? And it's carried on from their. Not surprising though; Smith can always get great musicians, but he could never replicate the dripping precision, etc., of bygone years. Agree about Shiftwork, btw, whilst noting that it is in a triumviracy, between Extricate and Code: Selfish, which are all of ~quality. In fact, if it wasn't for Oranj, I'd extend the run of great albums either side, back to The Frenz Experiment and up to Infotainment Scan. @Black Kite:, at a risk of WP:OUTING ;) is that the Leeds gig? I was gutted; I had tickets for that when it was originally booked in February, as I was up there, but when it was re-scheduled, I had to lose them. Plus ça change!

Incidentally, I'd like to remnd everybody of WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM please :) :p — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Brut Chronicle

Ah, I see you got busy! I got sidetracked by Wark(s)worth, and I'm still being sidetracked, but I certainly want to get Brut up at DYK. Your additions have really fleshed it out and I may just go ahead and nominate it. Warkworth is sort of a gift to my friend (whom you see cited in the article, haha) and I'm finishing that up as fast as I can. Thanks for pitching in! Drmies (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Err- right! Well- thanks very much! Not sure what you mean, pitching in? - oh, you mean pitching in to fill red links I guess. Anyhow, fair play on namedropping Kauffman :) tell me, does he approach the chronicles from a historical or linguistic prespective, primarilly? Thanking you, Drmies. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• OK, now I see why you didn't see. How do I start this mystery narrative? You started writing Brut Chronicle on 27 April, unbeknownst to me (unless I forgot that I knew, which would be seriously messed up). I started writing Prose Brut on 1 May. The other day I made a redirect, Brut Chronicles, to Prose Brut. For some reason or other, maybe via your contributions, I land in the history of your Brut Chronicle, seeing all those meaty edits, thinking that they are beefing up my Prose Brut--and as you know, the names are used somewhat interchangeably. So I'm thinking you are helping me out, whereas you were SELFISHLY working on YOUR OWN article, haha. You can imagine my surprise when I discovered that you and I were working on the same thing, under different names, separately.

  So, next step--what do we do? We should merge these things, of course. We don't have to fight over the title: Brut Chronicle works just fine for me. I have some info on the MSS that you don't, and you have much more of everything else--the state of my article is explained by the fact that I'm going through Matheson section by section. (He needs an article, by the way--in the copy I have here is the handout he prepared for a reading at the Zoo, 2005...) What say you? I'm tackling Warkworth while we figure this out, and let's go ahead anyway and nominate yours for DYK. And then we get Mike Christie on board, and Ealdgyth, and put a gold star on it. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe it. Unbelievable. I only started writing it at your nudge too! Remember your edit summary on my last article here ('no article on this?')- and I thought, that's a good idea! Really sorry- probably should have warned you! Well, whatever about the size of it, your prose is far more- chiselled, than mine, shall we say? -some of my sentences are longer than the Krays,' apparently :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Haha, Template:Did you know nominations/Brut Chronicle, never mind... Drmies (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • BTW, I think the best hook (sorry) is found in the first sentence of Matheson's preface. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll pull the DYK. What's that then, the p.1 of the preface? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No, don't pull it--it's fine, and if you like (after all, it's your work) we can propose an ALT hook which is very much like yours. I'll quote Matheson: "The Middle English prose Brut survives in more manuscripts than any other Middle English work except the two Wycliffite translations of the Bible." Drmies (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No skin off my nose; yes that's a good quote. Oddly, I thought I'd used it too- but obviously not! Well, let's get Matheson on the front page then. Please atend to it in your own time :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey now! Don't you know this newfangled youngster 13th century stuff is not my thing! (grins). I actually don't think I have much on the Brut Chronicles ... it really is past my normal period. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"It is very early thirteenth century," the March Hare meekly replied... ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Me neither, but I'd be happy to help out with reviews, so long as it's not in the next two or three weeks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mike, I haven't even started grading final exams... Drmies (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Haha I just deleted your article. If you were an admin you could undo me. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And we're back. I'm merging some of the stuff. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Undo you? By the time that happens, you'll be 'crat, steward, and founder- and still not getting undone! That's a great article now. Really great. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For tirelessly helping to keep Wikipedia free of userpage spam Dlohcierekim 07:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'd forgot about barnstars! Thanks very much, Dlohcierekim, all team work though, you and your fellow Dark Lords Of The Black Mop! Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:30, 5 May 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…
129		Corroborating evidence (talk)	Add sources
6		Dohenys GAA (talk)	Add sources
104		Hat tip (talk)	Add sources
6		Clyda Rovers GAA (talk)	Add sources
254		Historia Regum Britanniae (talk)	Add sources
7,405		Wars of the Roses (talk)	Add sources
10		Carbery GAA (talk)	Cleanup
4		Coalisland Na Fianna GAC (talk)	Cleanup
4		Pallaskenry GAA (talk)	Cleanup
6		Valley Rovers GAA (talk)	Expand
8		Glengarriff GAA (talk)	Expand
5		Kilmacabea GAA (talk)	Expand
71		Mexx (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6		Man-O-War GAA (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
94		Savvis (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
117		NUTS statistical regions of the United Kingdom (talk)	Merge
743		SoftBank Group (talk)	Merge
231		Metres above sea level (talk)	Merge
4		Glanworth GAA (talk)	Wikify
4		Navan O'Mahonys GAA (talk)	Wikify
50		Two-factor models of personality (talk)	Wikify
42		Malakkappara (talk)	Orphan
16		Whitewashing (beauty) (talk)	Orphan
5		Jazz meditation (talk)	Orphan
7		O'Donovan Rossa (Skibbereen) GAA (talk)	Stub
3		St Catherine's GAA (talk)	Stub
4		Sarsfields GAA (County Cork) (talk)	Stub
8		Alexander Rudensky (talk)	Stub
4		Russell Rovers GAA (talk)	Stub
5		Simon Walker (historian) (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) 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

For tuna (part of your username)

For some reason I just noticed this now in looking at your username (the first part in your signature at least), it reads "For tuna". I am not sure if that is intentional or not but, either way, well done. I happen to like tuna - and puns for that matter . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 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 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I 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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Closure of Ritchie's request

Superlative! Lourdes 17:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Thanks very much- I appreciate that! It makes up for getting a hard time over it, elsewhere :D Take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh don't mind that. Your closure of Ritchie's request is quite maturely worded, unexpectedly fair, and points to an outstanding understanding of how to assess discussions. The discussion of the audience (about why such discussions should not be closed) is a meta issue and is not related to the classy closure. Look at it this way; if there had been consensus already on this issue – that such discussions should not be closed – you wouldn't have done this. This is just a new community perspective, which while being fair, is not against you. Well done again. See you around. Lourdes 00:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(And if you anyway are at it, you might consider correcting "nearly two weeks has passed" to "nearly two weeks have passed". He he. Lourdes 00:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC))

Thanks again, Lourdes. And that typo, sorted. I particularly liked '...unexpectedly fair'!!! As if, I was just far mor likely' to condemn him roundly :D cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

advertising in sandboxes

You reverted a new users sandbox. I have recreated it here sandbox. I think the idea of a large company using a users sandbox to advertise its wares as tricky to justify. However I have removed any flowery claims. Please consider if new users are allowed to experiment in sand boxes. We are short of editors and they need to find out how somewhere. Victuallers (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Sigh. And what is this about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dear Victuallers It is a curious experience having to explain to an administrator basic policy, but here goes. Please read- and then advise your ?students- to read WP:NOT, WP:PROMO, and everything that includes. Please also see, and pass on, WP:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? These are all useful links. I understand that there is a perception we are 'short of editors'; let me assure, we are not short of spammers. New users are allowed to experiment in sandboxes, within the above guidelines. As to why a company would advertsise...? Note the diference between advertising and promotion. May I ask why, also, you have decided to approach me on my talk page but not the deleting administrator? I'm sure you would feel at ease talking to one of your peers :) ciao. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That is my error FIM. Sorry I picked the wrong user. I am having difficulty in understanding why we are so hard on new users. Correction and advice seems like better answers than just reverting. Still it appears I'm learning too Victuallers (talk)

On a lighter note, I appreciate your promoting me. Looking forward to the payrise :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well thank you NeilN :) you're just showing off that that's half what you're on :)

...but I like the way you avoided the {{clear}}-Police there! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would promote eagerly.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Users for deletion?

Hey, do you know why your user page is populating Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times? It's kind of screwing with the backlog notice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: FIM's page was in the category directly. Should be fixed. --Izno (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean, if he wants it there, I don't personally have a problem with it. The category police might have something else to say though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ivanvector and Izno: Thanks very much for pointing that out IV and for dealing with that Iz; I see, I put myself into that category, instead of linking to it. That must've looked odd to say the least! Thanks both, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: The category police?! Hey, You dirty rat, you miscategorized my brother!!! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page rodent): — PaleoNeonate — 15:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Everything okay (user page actually deleted)? — PaleoNeonate — 23:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yo @PaleoNeonate: [14] s'all :) Cheers though! 🍺 — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 04:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to know it's nothing major — PaleoNeonate — 04:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. And it is quite a relief to see a blue link there again! --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Morning Bonadea, always good to see you here ma'am! ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User page

It looks like another admin deleted some revisions of your user page in 2015. I'm not sure what they deleted so I've restored all the revisions since that was done. If you want me to restore the rest let me know. Hut 8.5 06:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: No, that's fine thanks all the same, I seem to remember it was just trolling. Apologies again for mucking you about! Cheers — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Me whistles

/me whistles — PaleoNeonate — 07:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• eh, PaleoNeonate, whistles?! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Innocently, of course (see your user page). bbl, — PaleoNeonate — 07:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For your note at my talk page. I had received the earlier message, but hadn't yet figured out what it meant. Now I do. Insightful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thanks (I guess!)- on that page I linked to, did yous see the version before it was blanked? (Just making sure we aren't talking at cross-purposes that's all) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Walter van Dyk

Were you fixing it up/To break it back down? Can you not wait to BURN it down!Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Classic track! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: It is no longer unreferenced. Noteworthy and reliable sources, citations and references have been added to the page Walter van Dyk --Walter van Dijk 19:08 19 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.9.67 (talk)

Lauren Harries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi apologies if I made a mistake on Lauren Harries. I thought genes reunited was a reliable source. ChocolateCoatedStrawberry (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disrupting discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am well aware that users can remove whatever they like from their talk pages. The particular user who deleted my question claimed that they were moving it to the article talk page, which they did not do. So they seem to have made a mistake, and I am asking the question again. Why not just let them delete it if they want to? Why disrupt a discussion between two people you have nothing to do with, which has after all actually managed to substantially improve the lead section of the article concerned? 109.180.164.3 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

May I recommend you continue your doubtless good work on the article, and avoid behaviours that can appear as harassing other editors? You should wait for them to explain their actions to you instead of making assumptions; particularly as they haven't edited nearly three hours. Please spend your valuable editing time her more productively, is all I can suggest. Happy editing! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

They are hardly likely to explain their actions if you keep deleting my request, are they? How about you butt out of a discussion that doesn't concern you and let them decline to answer my question without your blundering? 109.180.164.3 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm. Nice try! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 20:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Human Rights Foundation: It is a policy-grade requirement that editors whose behaviour is being discussed at that noticeboard are promptly informed of it. That is what Winged Blades etc. was doing. That is not therfore harassment. You are far better advised to join the dscussion at ANI and explain how your edits have been helping the encycloaedia- if you can. Many thanks. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):(talk page stalker)Well, he has got a new template!Specks of laughter in an otherwise boring travel!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes; I didn't need my WP:CRYSTALBALL for that one :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arredondo_ales

In fact this person Marchjuly first has deleted some logos of companies that i put in my sandbox saying that they are not free coomons but they are used in the companies wiki pages then the second time he simply deleted the complete table i've created and that took me many time to create.Why he just deleted the hole table.itS more than vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arredondo ales (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arredondo ales: I appreciate your exasperation, and I understand that Wikipedia might appear to have some unnecessarilly complicated rules. But the rules we have are there to protect us, and rules about copyrights have to be so stringent otherwise we could be taken to court. You understand that. Now, I see you have been told a few times now by both Black Kite and Marchjuly, on your talk page and at an ANI thread. Please carefully consider what you have been told: that some of our rights to use certain images (especially ones, like logos, which are not taken by individual editors here) are contingent on not over-using particular images. So, if we clam 'fair use' for an image, we are basically promising to only use it in an article. And if we use it anywhere else, we are breaking that promise. See? And, by the way, your repeated blanking of Marchjuly's talk page here and here is also against our rules; doing it again could be seen as disruptive editing and lead to sanctions being placed on your account. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok so in fact he can delete my work and when i deleted his its all recorded i did in purpose because i wanted an explanation why he is allow to delete my work ok for the images it were 4 over 12 by the way but he can not delete my complete sandbox lol, in what world we are living here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arredondo ales (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Your whole sand box was chock full of images that sholdnt have been there. Of this you were told. And if they had been removed there would have been insufficient left to have demonstrated any value to the encyclopaedia. So it was deleted as a near-/ multiple copyright violation.

So, yeah; that's the way the cookie crumbles! Take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arredondo ales: I did remove the logos from your sandbox, but I did not delete the sandbox itself or remove any tables. I am not an administrator and only an administrator can delete a page. Just for reference, the administrator who deleted your sandbox is named Bbb23 and the reason given was because it violated WP:U3 (see here). If you want more specific details about this, you should ask at User talk:Bbb23.

As for the non-free logos I removed, I tried to explain to you a number of times why using them in your sandbox is not permitted by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but you seemed unconvinced. So, I asked for an administrator to help try and resolve this matter. I did not request that your sandbox be deleted or that your account be blocked; I only asked for an administrator to try and explain things to you. My guess is that Bbb23 took a look at the sanbox and decided, as pointed out above by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (who is also an administrator), that it had too many problems to be fixed. This does not mean that you can never create another sandbox again; it just means you should try and do so in accordance with Wikipedia's user page guidelines;[Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike thorugh incorrect comment. -- 01:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)]

Finally, blanking the user talk page of another editor, even out of frustration, is something that will eventually get your account blocked if continued, so I strongly advise you not to do such a thing again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The user is gone. Hey FIM, you didn't tell me you were an administrator? My condolences.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The part about FIM being an admin was a mistake on my part; I misread the icon in their pop up, so sorry about the confusion. Also, thanks for your help in resolving this. FWIW, I wasn't really out to get anyone blocked, let alone indefinitely blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: No worries at all. I was just poking fun. FIM would never pass an RfA anyway. Administrators are not allowed to have a sense of humor. Don't worry about the indefinite block. That was my decision. I didn't think you were requesting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) WP:TTWOA about Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is not surprising — PaleoNeonate — 02:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is one of those WP:NBC^* threads I think :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 05:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

^*Not Before Coffee

Clearly NBC doesn't mean what I think it means :) thanks for the promotion @Marchjuly and PaleoNeonate:. Not sure about the hours though. Do you know how long it takes to get Bbb23's thousand yard stare...?! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Remembrance of poofs past

Fortuna, can you help me remember where this whole "poof" thing started? Someone (you?) on some talk page made a reference to a British game show, and I said, "As if I was one of you English poofs". Can you recall where that was? Ping me. EEng 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, blame me right. EEng It was at ANI, with this edit, where I clearly wasn't supporting your block  :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Elias Beckingham

On 21 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elias Beckingham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 13th-century English royal justice Elias Beckingham was described as being one of only two honest judges in the kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elias Beckingham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elias Beckingham), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"...Semper in angaria"

Hac in hora/ sine mora... You don't know it, but you pluck at my heartstrings with your username. And I love it. And I get it. Well, at least as much as a body can, anyway. Thank you for that. KDS4444 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks very much, KDS4444. 'Always enslaved' just about sums it up :) glad you like it! Cool hat by the way. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

my apology to you from me user:Ukrainetz1! for that no sense ani report, i already apologized to the user i brought up User talk:Bonadea

sometimes i get bit confused it does not happen often but next time i will try not to make such nonsense reports without thinking twice..again...it does not happen often! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem Ukrainetz1, hopefully you'll sort out any little problems! I'm sure you're going to be a great editor, cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Somebody else has us so conditioned that this might have been misidentified as their posting at ANI. That banned user gets blocked so fast...well, you know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: you are absolutely correct, and if it had been necessary I would have undone. Luckily, the OP seems to prefer it gone. But yes, it had all the hallmarks didn't it- the grammar, accusing Bonadea, etc. All's well that ends well though. I hope :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Palatinate

I originally changed the link to Palatinate because County of Durham isn't very useful to follow as a link and the Palatinate article seemed a better choice. I added a footnote that I hope clarifies why the Palatinate was so important. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. But precision is required in regard of what the Nevilles actually held in Durham. The palatinate was a judicial boundary; their estates were in the county. Likewise, the offices they held were in the palatinate not the county. Tuck expressly says this. The problem is not to make things so ready for the reader that the sources are misrepresented. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will clarify this further, thanks Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your activity in UAA

Would you please tell me how do you find so many spammy users? I want to help keeping wiki clean. :-) kindly ping me when you reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yo Usernamekiran, no magick, sorcery or arcane lore is involved; just good old WP:NPR. Mind you, it's been v quiet this weekend on the processed meats front. Anyway, you know where to go  :) Happy editing! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

oh. I was hoping at least alchemy would be involved. I am good with WP:SNEAKY, but it doesnt need alchemy either.

I seldom lurk in WP:NPR, but its mostly WP:BLP nowadays; thats sort of mundane for me. See you around :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Clergy sources

Since you do some work on relatively obscure English clergy, I was wondering if you might have any idea on where to find a source an a relatively obscure Italian cardinal: Domenico Tosco (being a red link suites the cardnilatial status I suppose). Discovered this gem while cleaning up early modern papal conclaves. Was almost elected pope in 1605, but was too foul mouthed for Baronius' liking. Currently all I have on him is that he was a cardinal who said dick a lot and that there was a portrait of him in a Venetian gallery in the 19th century. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Try Catholic Encyclopedia, and Salvador Miranda's site, for at least leads on where to start. Miranda has him as Toschi, which might help as an alternate name to search for. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've actually not been a fan of the Miranda site: it appears to not be peer reviewed/self-published, and there are some inconsistencies at least in terms of conclave attendees between him and various other sources (I can't recall specifically which ones now). If it is an RS that is great, but the way it has been used on the early modern conclaves has been essentially to generate lists without any useful prose. If either of you have opinions on it as a source, that would very helpful in working through the conclave series. The name changes based on the source, and I've found a few Italian language ones searching Toschi but unfortunately, I'm an anglophone with enough Latin and Spanish to be sing badly, but not much more. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it as a source (well, not for anything beyond a stub), but there are some sources he lists which may help you. I can't help much - 1535 is getting a bit beyond my period and well, Latin/Italian is not my native tongue. I can work in broad picture things for this period, but I'm not an expert on where to find the details for obscure clergypeople. (I'm sure the poor readers are sorry that I CAN find sources for obscure medieval Englishmen...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help anyway! Interestingly enough, my academic background mainly focused on Spanish religious history 1492-1525 (long story how I got there). I just stumbled across the conclave project when I found stubs basically copy and pasting Miranda into Wikipedia, and figured I could at least write some prose based on better sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, if he is Domenico Toschi you might want to try the articles in the French and Italian Wikipedia for starters. That is also the name for him given here. The dates for him becoming a cardinal in 1599, and his titular church of San Pietro in Montorio, appear right - eg [16] - which give some credence to the other dates. No doubt there is some fluidity between Tosco and Toschi. Some sources in Google Books suggest he is also "di Reggio" or "dei Mascheroni". Also this looks interesting. At worst, machine translation may assist, or you might be able to enlist the help of an Italian speaker. Hope that helps. And I wonder if there is any link with Pier Francesco d'Jacopo di Domenico Toschi.

Thanks to you both. I've gone ahead and create as a stub. Knowing the years of birth and death from Miranda's helped me glean enough elsewhere that with the limited language skills I could muster enough for 500 characters and an infobox. It also led me to this, which appears to be the golden goose in the search, unfortunately while I could figure out a way to get my hands on it, I don't have the necessary language skills for it to be too useful. Shame too, he appears to have been a peer in the College with Baronious and Bellarmine: Baronious the historian, Bellarmine the theologian, Toschi the jurist with Practicarum conclusionum iuris in omni foro frequentiorum being his opus. Anyway, enough of my musing. Thanks to you both. Hopefully I can expand it enough that someone with the language skills will be able to come along and expand it later! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni and Ealdgyth: and 213.205.251.66, many thanks for the interesting discussion. Apologies Tony for being as much use as a pair of sunglasses on a bloke with one ear, but that's also a bit out of my period- and geography- and over-all comfort zone! It's true I did a few Elizabethan recusants, but that was just to complete the missing ?four biograpgies that were missing from our category Eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales. And I'm afraid they're pretty low grade, just Gbooks stuff and the like. Let alone in Italian! But you've done a (if I can try not to sound dead patronising!) a cool job with that one. As for that thesis / ?book source, have you tried our people at WP:RX? It seems to be only available in 1000-year old European libraries; but WP:RX might havepeople there. As a thought. Thanks to Ealdgyth and IP! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not patronising at all, Fortuna! You graciously allowed me to commandeer your talk page. I might try RX, Amazon seems to suggest it is a book (and Princeton holds it as well). The concern is that well, my knowledge of Italian is limited to the accented English I hear from the Neapolitans at the local pizzeria! Anyway, thank you for your help, oddly enough the best early modernist I know started out as a medievalist, so I always think it worth asking. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hattie Jacques

You reverted my edit on Hattie Jacques. Can you source the claim that she is best known for her Carry On appearances, and also specify who knows her best this way? As you say, she performed in a number of other successful productions on TV and radio, so many may know her better for these.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Having said that- and I don't particularly insist either way- that form of words is traditional WP wordery, and this is a current featured article, so frankly there's very few changes that should be made to it without a talk page discussion. But, cf. what e.g. User:Cassianto might suggest; I'd defer to them in this things concerning this article (and indeed most FAs). thanks for the note Escape Orbit  :) Happy editing! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, this is one of mine. Unfortunately, we don't usually cite lead sections, per WP:LEADCITE, but the guideline do recommend: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." I don't feel as if this is one of those occasions. It was the Carry on series that brought her to the country's notice; moreover, the Carry on's came before Sykes or any of her other, well-known performances for television. Although this is supposition, I would wager that most people of a certain age (FIM's, for instance 😆) who have the name "Hattie Jacques" said to them, will think of the Carry ons. I can probably modify it to take away the certainty of Hattie being known mainly for the Carry on's, but any further discussion as to what that is should really be over at the talk page. Cassianto^Talk 09:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I forbid you to discuss my age anywhere else. Someone'll be bound to mention bloody maturity or something juvenile like that :p — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, you're far too cynical about the people on this website! Even the best of us need to do a little growing up at times. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers mate: I'd forgotten how gorgeous she was :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks you for minding my talk page while I was away, I was astonished to see that the banner instructing users to post messages above it was still at the bottom. the cheque's in the post, thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh! I wondered if that was some kind of Krypton Factor intelligence test for the rest of us! Good to see you back though Jimfbleak  :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Neville-Neville Feud

I think Neville–Neville feud is ready for review, I tried to address all the points that BlueMoonset raised in his review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice one Seraphim System I note you've certainly gone extras on the details  :) I've reset the GA nomination, so we just sit back and wait. OR, if you know anyone who wants to do it, I guess it's OK to ask around. Take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Request For Help

Hello Fortuna, earlier today you flagged my sandbox for deletion because it violated Wikipedia's standards for promotion (I understand why this happened and it makes sense). It was deleted, and since then I have been trying to make the page again and you flagged it again for deletion, but I was wondering if you could go and make suggestions on my talk page of what exactly is causing the issues, and what I can fix so as to not be in violation with the rules here. Ndullea (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please change your signature.

Per WP:SIG#CustomSig, please change your signature, it isn't "easy to identify the username". Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hawkeye75 you can't tell some to stay off your talk page then turn around and post to theirs, just sayin. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris- I suppose you mean it could be interpreted as WP:BEAR? But- this is unfortuante as I am now not in a position to apologise and say it was intended to be a light-hearted throw-away remark, rather than a character assassination with malicicious intent. But never mind.

I think, concerning the question at hand, that whilst my sig clearly follows the customisation protocol (in all three areas), WP:IMPERSONATOR is probaby worth a read  :) take care! and thanks again for your comment. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought what you said was funny. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's nice, furthermore, "Hac in hora sine mora//corde pulsum tangite;//quod per sortem sternit fortem,// mecum omnes plangite!Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hell, yeah- the strong man struck down by fate- or Arbcom huh! 💪 😀 — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Adrian Morales-Demori

Could you have a look? Claims nom for an award. I cannot find sourcing. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you last night, Dlohcierekim. But I think you're dead right, and I hope I haven't jumped your claim, but on account of the poor sourcing, I've proposed it for deletion. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeing....

Thomas Neville (died 1460) makes me think I need to get back to the early Nevilles again. After the WP:Core Contest! Good work on Thomas! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course- Ralph Neville is one of yours isn't it? You know, Ealdgyth you're always welcome to cast a critical eye over it (or any of 'my' articles for that matter)- I don't think I would ever see the need to revert you  :) The core contest sounds fun- a shame I didn't see it until now. Or is only FAC editors who are involved? "No quarter given, or received!" cried Warwick at the Core Contest of 1461. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Core Contest is for anyone, and it's running through the end of June, so still time to pick something and work on it! Join us! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth; well, I might've had a go at The Wars of the Roses :p -but, seriously, that list nearly made me cross-eyed! It would be handy if it could be sorted by wikiproject or something. It's odd that there are so many FAs on it; I wouldn't have thought they could be improved, realistically. still, thanks very much for pointing the core contest out to me. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia:Vital articles (and its various relatives) to be much easier to navigate. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

So it is, much easier. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Do either Thomas Neville (died 1460) or Thomas Neville (died 1471) – both born c. 1429 – fit in anywhere on the #Neville family tree? Are these guys related at all? I don't know how you can choose a primary topic among two men with the same name, born the same year, both associated with the Wars of the Roses. I'd suggest disambiguation of the latter somehow, and moving Thomas Neville (disambiguation) to the base title. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And are they part of the Neville–Neville feud? On opposite sides? wbm1058 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Wbm1058:

  

  Diagrammatic illustrating the basic relationship between Thomas Neville (d.1460) and Thomas Neville, Bastard of Fauconberg (d.1471).

Thanks. FYI, I'm here because on my patrols I spotted this untruthful hatnote, which I reverted. Since it seems you place the one that died 1460 as the more notable man, then we should move Thomas Neville →

• Thomas Neville (died 1471) or
• Thomas Fauconberg or
• Thomas Neville, Bastard of Fauconberg, or back to
• Bastard of Fauconberg? wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Wbm1058: 'Untruthful'; you are most kind. I assume that TNd.1460 is 'more' notable as that article is more substantial, is based on reliable secondary sourcing as opposed overly-much on WP:PRIMARY, and is generally more accurate don't really mind which is the primary page as it occurs to me I have no idea what the criteria are. Do as you consider best according to logic and policy (if they happen to coincide!). Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Template:Wars of the Roses, I see that OwenBlacker favors Thomas Neville, Viscount Fauconberg, and since that's a red link it will be easy to move there without needing to clear the way, as I would need to do with Thomas Fauconberg, as that page has merged history. Viscount is a more flattering title than bastard. Should Thomas Neville (died 1460) be added to Template:Wars of the Roses, as a major magnate in the north of England during the Wars of the Roses? wbm1058 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is  :) unfortunately there's no evidence (or indeed, liklihood, on account of his illiegitimacy) that he ever was a viscount. I'd be interested to hear more on that possibility though, certainly. On the WotR template; well, I don't know really- does it have a definition for 'major'? Just MHO, etc., but it was his father who was the major magnate in the north- TN was a second son, and dead by ~30. So I suppose he definitely had an impact (especially in the Percy-Neville feud, funnily enough)- but was it enough to be important? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I do a bunch of editing on [Continental] European mediæval history, where there are many German princelings, so I generally favour the patterns Name II, Title of Place and Name, Nth Title of Place for all nobles and princes (including monarchs). But in that edit I was merely matching the pattern that was already in the template. For the Thomas Neville in question, however, I would prefer Thomas Neville, Viscount Fauconberg iff he actually bore that title. If he was known to his contemporaries as Thomas Neville, Bastard of Fauconberg I wouldn't object to that article title, but I'd definitely prefer Thomas Neville (died 1471) to Bastard of Fauconberg, if only for the sake of clarity. — OwenBlacker (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, I noticed the infobox on Wars of the Roses lists "Thomas Neville" twice (once in each column of Belligerents). The bastard was beheaded, and I see the skull & crossbones symbol on the "Yorkist rebels" side. So was the bastard a "Yorkist", as indicated by the lead of his bio, or a "Yorkist rebel"? And the other one "Later defected to the Lancastrians"? I think one of the links needs to be fixed, as they both point to the same guy (or are they the same guy, before & after defection?). wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Thomas Fauconberg was (apparently) in the Kingmaker's service, who started off as a Yorkist, but who then c.1469, through dissatisfaction with Edward IV of England, joined the House of Lancaster. Thos Fauconberg therefore followed him- that's how he becomes a Lancastrian too :) my (joke) Thomas Neville (d.1460), was always a Yorkist- but just not for very long! So the WotR I/B should prob have the two TN's I guess. Unless he's not enough of a major magnate  ;) but I don't know the criteria for that. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Rejoining this conversation - I assume you have Charles Young's The Making of the Neville Family in England? While its not perfect, I used it extensively on Hugh de Neville, Ralphie, Alan de Neville (forester), and Alan de Neville (landholder). The early Nevilles are like weeds, they spring up everywhere... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed  :) although Young stops c.1400, so is wholly unsatisfactory for their promotion to the earldom of Westmorland onwards. In fact he condenses the entire period 1403-c.1460 out in order to epilogise it! Bit odd that, I thought. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If I recall right, Young's more a 1200s-1300s kinda historian. He did do a biography of Hubert Walter and a really outstanding work on the royal forests... but was not a prolific author like Frank Barlow ...If I had to chose one period, it'd be Billy the Bastard and his sons. I start losing some interest with Stephen, and by the time of Edward I, my snores start disturbing people. I do edit more broadly here - it's hard to avoid, but my first interest is Billy and his sons (although I think Henry's more a bastard than his father...) I really wish you or someone here would work on the Hundred Years' War article and the Wars of the Roses article... they could use some love but I just don't have the books unpacked or the desire...Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ealdgyth- you're correct of course, his first thing was the royal forests, and clearly that led him on naturally through the Nevilles from there. I gues his eyes closed up around Henry IV too  :) it's true, I've had my eye on re-working the WotR article for some time, but my sandbox is a graveyard to good intentions- Henry VI is testament to that! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your user name

I was at a performance of Carl Orff's Carmina Burina by the National Symphony Orchestra recently, and I thought of you and your user name. I presume it was taken from the Orff work, or from the middle-ages text he used, although the phrase "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi" has been used in many other places. DES ^(talk) 18:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel, that's very kind. Kind of odd being thought about off-wiki, if you get me, but cool too. Cheers! Unless it just reminded you of some WP:NOTHERE indef you'd forgotten about :D

Hope you had a good time. It is, as you guessed, from the Orff. It was in Excalibur (film) when I first heard it, back in the 80s as a kid, I bought a CD (still got the case!), and eventually managed to see it years later. The whole thing *rocks*: beer, women, and gambling. That's the weekend sorted out, eh. Funny you should mention it though, if you look up a bit, another afficionado. I'll keep up the WP:CANVASSsing on behalf of medieval texts and their operetas. Happy Sunday! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was an excellent performance. Oddly, Excalibur (film) was also the first time that I heard it. Small world. Thanks. DES ^(talk) 21:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Prinsipe Ybarro

Sorry, I can't comment, the thread was removed whilst I was at work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Redrose64 for someone whose talk page has a massive sign (nicked from Oshwah, I note!) claiming to want to chat, they don't seem overly keen on conversations! Well, the crux of it is is that I managed to persuade them to change their Sig from FFE100 text on FFFFFF background, and they did; but in not sure the current one is a great improvement re. MOS:CONTRAST. Thanks for looking in though — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I need help...

Do you have a link to the user box pages? I cannot find them anymore which sucks and now I'm frustrated from looking for them. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't know much about user boxes. I've only got two. And they're pretty hidden, in the eye of the sky where no man can find it. Happy editing all the same! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

To bad. Thanks for replying though! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Dinah Kirkland: please see Wikipedia:Userboxes for some (although they're not all there, there also are categories which can be used to locate them, and some are simply created by users for single-use on their own user page). Enjoy, —PaleoNeonate - 21:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Grazie so much! (Thank you!) Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Eian Beron

Hey there. I do understand the rules regarding a page creator removing the speedy deletion tag. However, this is page vandalism as an admin has already deemed the page not eligible last night. It is against the deletion policy to renominate a page for speedy deletion after an admin deems that it does not meet the criteria. Anyone who disagrees is supposed to start a deletion discussion. Would appreciate if you would take a look at the logs for me and remove the tag accordingly if I am not allowed to do so myself. It should not be there. JediLuke16 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)