User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

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)

Your GA nomination of Neville–Neville feud

The article Neville–Neville feud you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Neville–Neville feud for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

The previous one is much much cooler than the current one. Just an opinion though. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 22:42, 30 June 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…
2,837		Canterbury (UK Parliament constituency) (talk)	Add sources
6,499		Edward IV of England (talk)	Add sources
124		Battle of Wakefield (talk)	Add sources
49		North London line (talk)	Add sources
853		Torrentz (talk)	Add sources
117		First Battle of St Albans (talk)	Add sources
14		Kireç Koyu (talk)	Cleanup
64		Obstructing government administration (talk)	Cleanup
139		ZeroNet (talk)	Cleanup
9,819		McDonald's (talk)	Expand
21		History of English criminal law (talk)	Expand
14		History of the District line (talk)	Expand
285		EZTV (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
83		Prizes as an alternative to patents (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,186		Enterprise resource planning (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
398		3D scanner (talk)	Merge
1,847		Cladding (construction) (talk)	Merge
31		Iolo Technologies (talk)	Merge
333		Michael Winner (talk)	Wikify
605		Edgar the Peaceful (talk)	Wikify
200		Rape in English law (talk)	Wikify
7		Screen–smart device interaction (talk)	Orphan
12		From Disgust to Humanity (talk)	Orphan
3		The Medieval Translator (talk)	Orphan
53		Federal Correctional Institution, Ashland (talk)	Stub
4,917		Emma Dent Coad (talk)	Stub
14		Brandaris (talk)	Stub
1,565		Kensington and Chelsea TMO (talk)	Stub
45		Bindae-tteok (talk)	Stub
6		John Langstrother (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A.U.E.

Can it be worth deleting an article? Ruviki has this problem because most sources are simply phased in (АУЕ). --Jphwra (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brut Chronicle

The article Brut Chronicle you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Brut Chronicle for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 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 the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography 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) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigo Mendes Institute

Hello! Could you help me improve my article, and take out the Spams? Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rodrigo_Mendes_Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rúbia Piancastelli (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jam Filled Toronto

Thank you for closing that AfD. I felt a little too involved to do it, even though the speedy keep was pretty obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ratification C.Fred. — fortunavelut luna 13:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Distruptive Edits

Why are my edits deemed disruptive to Joseph Goebbels page and not Denniss. I provided reasons for my edits wheras the other editor deleted all my changes without any rationale whatsoever. Shouldn't he/she be given a warning too? Emiya1980 (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

I'll be right back. Stand by. — fortunavelut luna

@Emiya1980: I was referring to your edits of today, which had no edit-summary, reverted established consensus, and verged on edit-warring- I didn't look back at your previous edits oon the same page of a few days ago- or indeed, any other of your general contributions. — fortunavelut luna 13:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Black women and the prison system

Just letting you know I removed the CSD G10 tag as it didn't appear to be a BLP violation. It does appear to be more of an essay/OR though, so I'm going to tag it as a PROD for that reason (though the topic, if sourced properly could be added to Race in the United States criminal justice system I think). RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Black Women and The Prison System TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah-ha, Thanks TB, that's rather on the nose! Great catch! — fortunavelut luna 18:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Usecure article

Noticed you put a PROD on Usecure. Do you mind if I removed the PROD template and tag the article of G11 speedy delete? SamHolt6 (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, go ahead. — fortunavelut luna 15:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleting my page

Hey, I see you made the page for the ttc new livery that I maderedirect to the Toronto Transit Commission, why the hell did u do that, I didn't do anything wrong I've been spending so much time looking for a page like, fix that up because I spent time making that and u trash it.

 ProGamer21 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Userspace thingys

Per my general being too lazy to know anything about UPOL or U5, you might want to have a look at Kasparsofficial. I always forget whether "official" implies shared use or not. Lovely exchanging talk page posts today :) . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks: I don't mind taking one for the team every now and then  :) It's a little vague actually; whilst the page is pretty clearly (to me- I wouldn't dare presume to predict the opinion of our august admins) a U5, the username is less clear cut (again- I think- never found anything else written down except)- this discussion seems to be most of what there is. So, TLDR, I just shoved it upstairs. And, yes of course, likewise! — fortunavelut luna 16:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Update for TB: There you go: Such a unexplored minefield that there's even admins that don't want to go into it :) Maybe it's the Grimpen mire... Prob shouldn't have used whoever came along as a stool pigeon like that, but you get the picture. [1]. — fortunavelut luna 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You make me smile

	The Happy Dog Award!
	I really enjoy working with you. You are very fair and easy to get along with. Thank you for making sure we are on the same page and for taking the time with a new user, Elisa. :) I noticed you like dogs (me too!!!) so I found a cutie to send your way. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: yaay a Small Staffy  :) thanks a lot! And for yor words too- very rare on this page! — fortunavelut luna 09:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dolly Rudeman

Hello! Your submission of Dolly Rudeman 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Replied there. — fortunavelut luna 09:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Much deserved

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For countless acts of kind assistance. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Very kind and any time, 99! — fortunavelut luna 14:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

ISI

might be unfortunately named, but is not Islamic State. It's the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Not sure it's worth amending your close at ANI, but thanks for the chuckle. GoldenRing (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Opps.Thanks for that. The POV principle still applies; but I admit that the one isn't quite as bad as the other :) cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mentor

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 think I need you to be my mentor for a week, if you dont mind. I would rather not piss people inadvertently by asking questions. PLEASE

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.

The Times paywall

Hey, just wanted to say that you can bypass the paywall on The Times quite easily. If you create an account then you get 2 free articles (and I assume that you can just create another account afterwards) and then you can just CNTRL+S it to save it forever. This is in response to your message at User talk:Iridescent, but I thought it'd be a better idea to message you directly rather than clutter up their talk. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can also get a copy of any Times article from the nice folks at WP:RX. I do that at least twice a year, and they are very quick about it. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender- I've already got one outstanding request there, so I didn't want to look greedy! Thanks for the pointer though. And thanks Anarchyte, that'll be useful too for the future, I'll bear it in mind. Actually- the reason I haven't (á la Iridescent) slapped a prod on the thing is because a bit of a WP:BEFORE brought up a helluva lot more sources than I had thought- [2]. Although a lot are crap sources (Sun, Daily Mail), or passing mentions, regurgitated press releases, etc, the sheer number- and particularly their international breadth (China, Malaysia, Poland, India, Turkey, Ghana, as well as Europe...) checked me slightly. — fortunavelut luna 11:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voafose

Greetings. I picked up this AfD via Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old, as it is over a month old. You accidentally relisted it on 29 June shortly after Winged Blades did the same and reverted yourself. The problem is, there's a bug in the relisting tool whereby if a discussion is relisted for the second time in a day, it gets commented out of the daily log page without anything else happening, making it disappear. So I'm just pinging you here to advise that if you end up in this situation again, please remember to revert yourself on the log page in addition to the discussion page itself. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 16:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Finngall, that's useful informationa and advice. Wilco- cheers! — fortunavelut luna 16:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Grace Hutchins

On 27 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grace Hutchins, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Grace Hutchins promoted a radical Christian pacifist movement in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Hutchins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grace Hutchins), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Largest RfA turnouts

I've been fiddling with RfA parsing code this evening, and I've got a list of RfAs with more than 200 turnout. Most of these, as you might guess, are on WP:RFX200 anyway.

• 401 "Dihidrogen Monoxide 3" Unsuccessful 3 June 2008
• 383 "Danny 2" Successful 10 April 2007
• 320 "Cullen328" Successful 23 July 2017
• 300 "Hawkeye7 2" Unsuccessful 2 February 2016
• 282 "Werdna 2" Unsuccessful 26 January 2007
• 282 "Phaedriel 2" Successful 8 July 2006
• 281 "Liz" Successful 6 August 2015
• 280 "GoldenRing" Successful 9 April 2017
• 277 "Everyking 4" Unsuccessful 1 September 2008
• 276 "MZMcBride 3" Successful 4 September 2009
• 276 "Gracenotes" Unsuccessful 6 June 2007
• 272 "Oshwah 2" Successful 5 September 2016
• 263 "Can't sleep, clown will eat me 3" Successful 1 April 2006
• 252 "Ealdgyth" Successful 10 January 2017
• 248 "K6ka" Successful 7 January 2017
• 247 "Everyking 5" Unsuccessful 8 May 2009
• 247 "MONGO 2" Unsuccessful 26 January 2008
• 243 "TenPoundHammer 5" Unsuccessful 26 March 2008
• 242 "Elonka 3" Successful 6 December 2007
• 242 "Everyking 6" Successful 25 January 2010
• 239 "ProtectionBot" Unsuccessful 11 January 2007
• 239 "Daniel" Successful 6 December 2007
• 239 "SarekOfVulcan 2" Successful 10 May 2011
• 235 "Elonka 2" Unsuccessful 3 August 2007
• 231 "Crzrussian 2" Successful 11 October 2006
• 228 "Sean Black 2" Successful 16 July 2006
• 227 "Newyorkbrad" Successful 21 January 2007
• 227 "Montanabw" Unsuccessful 24 September 2015
• 225 "Anna Frodesiak" Successful 24 June 2013
• 224 "Widr" Successful 25 March 2016
• 223 "Σ" Unsuccessful 9 October 2012
• 219 "Ivanvector" Successful 27 December 2016
• 218 "PeterSymonds 2" Successful 22 January 2009
• 216 "Cirt" Successful 15 September 2008
• 215 "LessHeard vanU 2" Successful 24 May 2009
• 213 "Robchurch 4" Unsuccessful 27 May 2006
• 210 "TawkerbotTorA" Unsuccessful 5 October 2006
• 210 "Brianhe" Unsuccessful 6 February 2016
• 210 "Drmies" Successful 27 May 2011
• 207 "Godsy" Unsuccessful 5 December 2016
• 207 "GeneralizationsAreBad 2" Successful 13 July 2017
• 207 "VanTucky 2" Successful 23 April 2008
• 206 "lustiger seth" Successful 24 December 2008
• 203 "RickinBaltimore" Successful 7 November 2016
• 203 "HJ Mitchell 3" Successful 9 May 2011
• 203 "Enigmaman 2" Unsuccessful 13 January 2009
• 203 "The Thing That Should Not Be 2" Unsuccessful 26 October 2010
• 201 "MZMcBride 4" Unsuccessful 31 August 2010

If I can fiddle some more, I'll get some voting tally stats (eg: who has !voted in the most RfAs, my money's on Kudpung) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI report

Greetings. This is following your closing of my ANI report about an editor's abusive behavior. The issue is closed, but could you please explain your comments about the supposed objective of an ANI report to be "preventative rather than punitive"? I'm not aware of a Wikipedia rule with this specification about the ANI report process. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Gnome thanks for this. I was merely referring to the blurb '(This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of...'- my emphasis- which clearly implies (arguably, by use of the present tense, states) that the issue must be occuring at this point in time- or immediately preceding it. Although the language I used was of course verbatim from the blocking policy, and that is quite distinct from a noticeboard, I believe the implication is clear. I also doubt whther the intended point of AN/I is to have a place that would operate in such a contrary fashion (i.e. against the very spirit of prevention rather than punishment). The issue itself at Lauder was pretty exhaustively dealt with here, in a ~8,000 word triple-sectioned leviathon at the time- although I see from your contribs that it was perfectly possible for you to miss it. It is of course your prerogative to dispute my close, and as- I suppose a 'non' admin-action is still subject to the same degree of accountability- that's the correct place to do so. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 11:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @The Gnome: Cassianto is not being abusive right now (well he can't, he's blocked), so there's nothing to prevent. I posted on the Harry Lauder RfC that the discussion had become a train-wreck, and that I sometimes find infobox feuds discussions as exciting as taking the bins out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, all. This is useful information. I believed that the guilty party should have been forced to cool his/her heels for awhile but subsequently learned the user has been self-blocked. We can all get a little hot under the collar sometimes, when editing Wikipedia, but I still cannot understand the strong reaction that the humble infobox provokes. -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Could it be because even ten days after people have been part of a discussion, some people still don't drop the stick? (Mind you there are some who go round posting diffs from months or even years ago banging the same IB drum). As to "getting hot under the collar", neither you nor I have any idea what mood any other editor is in when posting, so perhaps it's best if we leave personal comments about other editors' motivations out of the equation? It is one of those things that is bound to provoke anger and hostility from some (mind you, talking about a user when they aren't around to defend themselves could possibly have the same effect too). The horse is now dead on this, and it's time the whipping stopped. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was summoned to that RfC by a bot and contributed to it with my opinion. I was quite surprised to witness the quite hostile and often insulting behavior of some editors in the discussion. The user Cassianto was not the only one; just the worst offender. Hence, my ANI report. My comment above about all of us getting "sometimes hot under the collar" was meant to defuse the still strong sentiments about the subject. It obviously failed.

The fact that the user Cassianto cannot post is irrelevant to my comments. When one gets blocked this does not mean commentary related to that user should stop! Plus, I find your intervention in this Talk Page to be part and parcel of the quite unbecoming attitude exhibited in that RfC. I'm trying to have a simple discussion here about the process of ANI reporting; so the party who flogs a dead horse is easy to identify. -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So now, and because I am a (talk page stalker) of FIM, the 'horse flogging' fault is mine? PMSL! If you want to "defuse the still strong sentiments" then stop posting on the subject. (Better still, don't open your comment on any WP thread by crassly dismissing everyone else's opinions as "senseless" just because it doesn't chime with yours: it's surprising you didn't get a blast of industrial and base Anglo-Saxon with that sort of opening). The Cassianto thread is in the archives and everyone has moved on, seemingly with the exception of you. Your question about the ANI reporting was answered some time ago and yet you are still going on? Time to move on and do something useful if that is possible. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Enough with this nonsense already. What is this now about the thread "still going on"? This is a thread I started in a user's Talk Page earlier today. It would have been over if it weren't for you butting in for some bizarre reason; and it is entirely irrelevant to the subject of that RfC that you are so keen to start all over again here, seeing as you are the one who's bringing up RfC comments. Keep the infobox obsession to yourselves. I have the information I requested and that is all as far as I'm concerned. Enough with the childishness. -The Gnome (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So you want to get on some high horse at ANI about civility, and you're happy to class other people's comments as nonsense and childishness? FFS - take a look at yourself before you start on others. The dramah over the Lauder finished eons ago: only you decided to keep it going, with one of the most ill-advised ANI threads I've seen in a while (discussed ten days ago at ANI and archived, nothing new to write about, but you think it worth re-kindling?) I have no obsession about IBs (yet another piece of incivility), so (again) you can drop your comments about what other people think. Just so you can try and understand, I have little to do with IBs, so hardly "an obsession"; if you want to see obsessional behaviour on IBs, look for people who add or remove them on a daily basis. – SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The ANI report was submitted because, as I wrote above, it was only "subsequently [that I] learned the user ha[d] been self-blocked". So much for those pesky eons. :-)

Anyway, things seem to be taking a quite interesting, equinine turn! First I'm beating a dead horse; now I'm riding a high horse. :-) Well, it has been educational. Goodbye, now. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Fréteval

On 22 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Fréteval, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 1194 Battle of Fréteval, Richard I captured the French King's government archive which travelled with him, who as a result founded the French National Archives in Paris? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Fréteval. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Fréteval), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I was so close...

Plip!

[3] [4]
...to adding {{YesAutosign}} to your talk page and writing an edit filter that makes it impossible for you to remove it. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is the second time you have done that.

Both times were deliberate.

Thank you for

You mean you deliberately wanted to force others to check the history to find out who leaves such comments? That does not sound very nice, does it? I wonder if I should take you to ANI for that.... After all, WP:SIGPROB does say Persistent failure to sign may become disruptive, and if it is persistent, despite the problems being pointed out to the user, doing so may be subject to sanctions. Regards SoWhy 15:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you should do that. Or- tell you what- even better idea- at RfB. Cheers. — fortunavelut luna 16:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Neville (died 1460)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Neville (died 1460) 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brut Chronicle

The article Brut Chronicle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brut Chronicle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello, Serial Number 54129! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dawood Khan (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@AvalerionV: Hello  :) Since you're still relatively new, I'll assume that this message was accidental? As per this I haven't used AC for some time now. Perhaps I could suggest just being slightly slower on the 'Inform original author' button? As you will not always reach the person you intended it to. Happy editing. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I am sorry. It was a mistake. Thank you for understanding. :) --Dawood Khan (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@AvalerionV: No problem. No harm done. Idle curiousity could lead me to wonder how the mistake came to be made though  :) since not only have I not edited AfC in some time... it appears that you never have  :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Haha, you got me there. I actually wanted to press the button for no reason. Somehow the invitation got sent without being asked for confirmation. So my bad. It's no secret I am new here. There is still so much to learn. Dawood Khan (talk)

Heh. We're all of us still learning  :) take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

About your changes to Adam

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.

---

June 2017

Hello, I'm Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Adam, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 08:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks! yes you made a mistake when you deleted everything, you have to discuss point by point and I will be happy to answer you, you have to tell me witch part you find it need a source. thanks Badrelmers (talk) 08:56, 30 June 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.

ORCP script

We have a script for it now? I can't tell by the documentation what it does. Does it evaluate people mechanically or just edit the Wikitext? TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm a dumbass who doesn't even know how a script works :) I just install 'em. Sometimes they work, if they like their installer :p. As I said, I haven't installed it. Happy Friday mate :) — fortunavelut luna 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Edits the wikitext :). I believe it's like most XfD closers if you've ever used one. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Man you guys are in the Matrix; me, I just looking for a decent steak out of the thing ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. The need for such a script confuses me, but whatever floats people's boats. Happy soon to be Canada Day to all. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC) This notice is being delivered on behalf of the DRN filer by a volunteer. You are requested to respond directly at the noticeboard

DYK nomination of Dolly Rudeman

Hello! Your submission of Dolly Rudeman 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the note. I'm afraid I will not have the time or resources to devote to this in the near future, so if you could hand it over to my c0-creator, that would have a greater chane of success. Many thanks, — fortunavelut luna 12:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 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 looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in 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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: DSaaP

Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DSaaP, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: seems like an article about a product, not an eligible subject. Also, being developed by a notable entity indicates significance anway. Thank you. SoWhy 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought so. Many thanks. My personal tendency, on a lighter note, is to try and avoid using the suffixal appendation 'although', as it may be seen to impy uncertainty combined with self-reassurance. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 15:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brut Chronicle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brut Chronicle 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Help on Neville-Neville feud?

I could use your help with this — recently I copy edited an article as part of the GOCE drive, and it was reverted by Ehrenkater. I templated the article for primary and rewrite (which it needs in my opinion) and right after that he has started editing Neville-Neville feud, running search and replace changing earl to Earl (it is lowercase in most of the modern sources), tag bombing, and arbitrarily changing to British English (I've used American English because that is what I know, and I want it to be consistent for the review.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(TPS butting in) Well, per WP:TIES, the article should be in Brit English. It's a royal PITA, but that's how things work on British subjects. This is why I now half the time spell things "honour", "favour", etc.... On the other points, I'd have to look and see. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it uses briteng per WP:ENGVAR, and MOS:JOBTITLES says use lower case for generic usage 'there have been many earls of Salisbury' but uppercase for specific people, 'Ric Neville, Earl of Salis' ta -FIM 2A02:C7F:BE16:8400:8044:38A2:35:4615 (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: OK, thank you for that link I had never seen before, I will go over it for British English.

re:ip Thank you, most (almost all) the sources I have used for the article use "earl of Westmorland" so I've followed the sources. Peacemaker67 said something this also, I think...I'm happy to do it either way. If following JOBTITLES is correct I will do that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"No problemo" sez the IP  :) 2A02:C7F:BE16:8400:8044:38A2:35:4615 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neville–Neville feud

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neville–Neville 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Rubinacci

Personally I thought it would. But I blocked the creator because he ignored the COI warnings when he obviously had one. Feel free to improve it if you can. I'm sure you'll be better at it than he was.Deb (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deb: Thanks for that. Gutted, though: I wouldn't want to get a reputation for saving spam. Take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You're an unreferenced BLP and AfC G13 eligible-soon submission :)

I didn't dare to fix them myself on your user page, but I noticed that the following categories lacked the : prefix (to make them non-categorizing links): Category:All unreferenced BLPs and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, (see here) . Have a good day, —PaleoNeonate - 12:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No harm in doing that yourself, really, something as small yet consequential as that. At least for me personally, obviously others could be far more precious over it  :) but atually, in the long run you'd be saving people work (at WP:REFUND if nowhere else!). Many thanks @PaleoNeonate: — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, especially when there's a way to transform it in a joke . And thanks for the permission to edit your user page for such small changes. I remember risking a joke edit there once (the little alien icon) and not getting scolded, but I also wouldn't want to be annoying. Later, —PaleoNeonate - 13:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh-uh, the alien's still there. Something of a dream catcher, perhaps, or scaring off the trolls  :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Paid Editing Userbox

I was scrolling through talk pages, and noticed your stance against paid editing. I just want to inform you that I have created a User-box that can express that opinion, if you want to use it. - Stormy clouds (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: That looks great. Opinoions very mildly expressed, if I may say so; but then, I suppose we have to follow WP:CIVIL  ;) how do I use this, any suggestions? I totally agree with it. Thanks for the offer Stormy clouds! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - whatever way you see applicable. Entirely up to you. - Stormy clouds (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, many thanks Stormy clouds, I did, although my talk is now messier than ever, and name-checked you in the e/s, but you wouldn't have got that notification. Thanks again, and take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) In case the question was how to add it to the user page, {{User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/End Paid Editing}} (standalone where wanted, or inside {{Userboxtop}} / {{Userboxbottom}} pairs to group user boxes together) should work. Have fun, —PaleoNeonate - 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

FFS you again! Yes, that was the sort of thing I meant :) You reckon this page is messy too? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

one man's mess is another man's pay packet. Cassianto^Talk 17:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I ain't checked my pay packet lately. How's yours? :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 23:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Charles Ross

I'm working through Peacemaker67's review suggestions but I have one question—can you confirm whether the Charles Ross source is referring to the 1st Earl of Westmorland for this statement: "Charles Ross has suggested that whilst it is indeed unlikely that the Earl of Westmorland had either "strong character or ability" this need not, he says, automatically mean that Joan was motivated by "deliberate malevolence" towards the elder branch," Peacemaker67 has asked for the names/titles to be standardized as 1st earl of Westmorland and 2nd earl of Westmorland — I agree that this would make the article less confusing, but I just need to confirm which of the earls this statement is about. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: The first earl- at that point Ross is discussing the question of whether Ralph I was 'under the thumb' of a domineering wife, as part of the question as to why the disinheritance occured (was it, for instance, part of a quid pro quo for attaining his royal bride in the first place- and more to the point, the royal connection and blood in their childrens' dynasties that resulted from it). Good luck, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I thought, thank you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I suggest standardising titles with initial caps, so it would be Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland etc, not 1st earl of Westmorland. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

So use the full title throughout the entire article? Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Whiteplains British School

I suspect that I have been blocked from wikipedia or that my sandbox username does not exist on wikipedia following the speedy deletion of my article Draft: Whiteplains British Scholl. There are tow articles on same title. The first was deleted on copyright violation basis. But I think the last one submitted for review last Friday should be deleted because I fundamentally rewrote the article to meet up with some copyright guidelines, as it was previously violating it. Therefore, I request for its undeletion and restoration of my username sandbox for future reference. Or what do you think that can be done?Nwachinazo (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Nwachinazo: T'was deleted by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising that would require a total rewrite. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nwachinazo: Thanks for your email of 13:56 this inst; these discussions are generally better taking place in what might be called the cold light of day; on talk pages. In any case you appear not to be banned, or blocked (since you were able to post)- why did you think so? But unfortunately the page you want to post (for instance) has been consistently in breach of our (rather strict, I'm afraid) policies regarding promoting a particular subject in an article and more generally what we should have in our user space. Things in breach of these policies are liable to speedy deletion I'm afraid. Perhaps you have a professional connection to the school? Could you let us know? Thanks again for your message. Take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thou art kind.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nwachinazo (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC) I want to state that, as a volunteer Wikipedian, I do not work for the organization or have any conflict of interest on the organisation that I wrote an article on. Rather, I was amazed on the level of structure, prestige, achievements, and notability the organization has got. I even cited some third-party reliable and verifiable sources to justify the article's notability. Obviously, I have to work on proper citations. As part of fundamental way to rewrite the article, I therefore request for its placement on my sandbox in its original form, so that I can make some edits. Thanks.

DYK for Brut Chronicle

On 21 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brut Chronicle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Brut Chronicle was one of the most-copied chronicles in medieval England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brut Chronicle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Brut Chronicle), 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Patmore Estate

Since you did such a good job with the Lancaster West Estate, perhaps you'll want to expand Patmore Estate?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Zigzig20s- I might take a look at some point- tbh, estates aren't actually my 'primary theatre of operation'  ;) see what ClemRutter has done to the LWE since I mangled my fists over it  :) Thanks for the note, anyway- take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Whelan

Thanks so much for tidying up my blunder on publishing Patrick Whelan (Volunteer)! Much appreciated :) 18:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Little note

Hi Fortuna, I have stumbled upon another user, by the name of User:Lunala Imperatrix Noctem who has started using a similar (in format) signature to yours. I am not sure if they have asked you if they could copy the formatting of your sig to use as their own, but in any case I am letting you know, as I know it can cause confusion and in the long term can be classed as impersonation. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 12:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: Thanks very much for the note! Well spotted. Yes the name is similar enough; but the signature is... well, of course AGF forces me to say, certainly a coincidence! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just dont want anything bad happenin', that is all ;) Nördic Nightfury 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I'll change it if you want me to. O Lunala! ^{Imperatrix noctem.} 02:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Nordic Nightfury, I've changed it. Do you think it might still be too similar? If it is, then I'll revise it again. O Lunala! ^{Imperatrix noctem.} 02:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it once more, as I felt the previous one was still too similar. Lunala! ^{Imperatrix noctem.} 02:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Initially, my thoughts went along--Oh! FIM got renamed! Your followers-count seems to be on an ascent!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lunala Imperatrix Noctem:--Well, regretably your signature still looks a lot too similar.The mark of exclamation; the superscripted part--all leads to a subtly bad impression.I would kindly request you to change it to something like-- [[User:Lunala Imperatrix Noctem|'''Lunala''']][[User talk:Lunala Imperatrix Noctem|'''Imperatrix noctem.''']] whch generates Lunala Imperatrix noctem..Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) I agree that it remains strikingly similar. O Fortuna's signature is rather unique not only for the language but also for the combination of font style/size, shadowing, the punctuation and the superscript italic text. There are so many other ways to format a signature that it certainly could distinguish itself properly with a little effort and creativity. —PaleoNeonate - 05:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Off-topic: Now that you mention shadowing, I remember why I disabled text-shadowing in my css. Not to be mean to you or FIM, but all those sigs with shadowing are kind of annoying In fact, Paleo, you should consider disabling it yourself. Your signature is much nicer without that shadow Regards SoWhy 14:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I want to make clear that my above-comment was not to propose that FIM alter their signature, it was to propose possible changes Gamer/Luna/SophisticatedSwampert could make to make their new signature drastically different. Hmm I'll think about it, in relation to shadowing in my signature; I think that when I experimented with it I made various tests to ensure that the shadowing was light enough to be clean, thanks for the suggestion. —PaleoNeonate - 01:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Nordic Nightfury, Winged Blades of Godric, and PaleoNeonate: thanks for posting here. Well, Lunala Imperatrix Noctem. What fun, what coincidence, if less imagination :p

At least

*LIN: [[User:xxx|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''xxxx'''</span>]][[User talk:xxxx|<span style="color:navy">^{''''' xxxx'''''}</span>]]

*FIM: [[User:xxx|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''xxxx'''</span>]][[User talk:xxxx|<span style="color:navy">^{''''' xxxx'''''}</span>]]

no longer applies. However your name is syllabically identical to mine, including being one-third identical in words, and your claim on your UP that 'The origin of the username is derived from three things... Imperatrix is a cool-sounding word...' should probably read something like 'The origin of the username is derived from three things... Imperatrix is part of the name of another editor who I have encountered here on a regular basis and so could not have come across the word any other way'  :) as our our interaction indicates. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So do you want me to change my username too? I've gotten rid of all signature markup(for now). I didn't mean to impersonate you... Lunala Imperatrix Noctem 13:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lunala Imperatrix Noctem: Per WP:SIGLINK, 'Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive.' Hpw about a WP:RFC/U? Get wider input? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I changed my signature to the one suggested by Winged Blades of Godric. I will change my username in a few days, as I think it will be too much of a hassle to ask tons of people about it. I apologize for any confusion that occurred, and hope that we can work this out. LunalaImperatrix noctem. 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lunala Imperatrix Noctem: OK :) no problem. Incidentally, SoWhy popped in a moment ago, so perhaps he could act as our own informal RFCU and advise :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I can tell you that I noticed Lunala (aka xboxgamer) a short while ago myself and wondered whether FIM had changed their name or someone else close to them started editing. As such, I agree with the sentiment above that the name choice, while understanding the attraction of a cool Latin sounding name, invokes parallels to FIM, same signature or not. In fact, same signature but different name would likely be okay, I remember back in the day some editors like Pedro and Ched used an iconic blue box signature without anyone complaining. So if you ask me, I don't think this is a case where a name change is strictly required by any policy but voluntarily doing so will probably be for the best for all involved. And FIM can feel flattered that their name is copy-worthy Regards SoWhy 14:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Back in the day I recall half the bloody wiki using the "iconic blue box" as their signature, one April Fools day :) Trust you're well SoWhy. Pedro :  Chat  19:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, that was fun, wasn't it? ;-) Shows how much we loved you! Sorry for pinging you here and I trust you are well as well (heh). Regards SoWhy 07:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't want to brag, but apparently I am so fast, I can edit-conflict myself! Regards SoWhy 07:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well met sir  :) Is that the (in)famous blue box itself? I like the old 'duality of being' thing you've got going on, by the way- being both an administrator and proudly declaring 'but might like not to be one some day.' Trés suave. Take care all. — fortunavelut luna 19:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is probably easier for everyone involved, and I'd rather not be reported to ANI for impersonation. I'm not exactly sure yet what I'll change it to, but I might have to wait a couple weeks before it'll be accepted, as I recently changed my name. Also, is there any good tutorials on signature formatting? I'd really like to learn how to make a custom signature to my new account, and customise it to my preferences. I'm not going back to my old username though, as I wanted more privacy because my old username could easily identify me. LunalaImperatrix noctem. 17:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Lunala Imp. Noct., and to reasure you perhaps, I was in no way threatening you with ANI, and apologies if it came out that way. No, I mentioned the WP:Requests for comment/Usernames, purely as I thought it would be a means of obtaining broader community input as to where the boundaries of 'impersonation' lay- particularly the diffrences between names and sigs. In other words, have this discussion in a more neutral territory. I think I'm right in saying- pinging SoWhy again, to hopefully confirm or deny this point- sorry for repeated pings today -that RFCU isn't the bearpit that ANI is, and blocks and boomerangs, etc., are pretty abnormal there I think? A place for reasoned discussion and decision rather than baiting and retaliation, like some other notices boards often, sadly, are. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, RFC/U is not ANI afaict. But since we already had our own small RFCU here and LIN has agreed to change the name again, I don't see the need. I also don't think another username change will be problematic now, you can just point to this discussion and any steward/global renamer will most likely understand that sooner is better. As for signatures, there is some guidance at WP:SIGAPP (mostly what not to do and what to remember). There is also Wikipedia:Signature tutorial with some examples. Use a sandbox and the preview feature to preview the look of your signature. It's a matter of preference what it looks like to. Personally, for example, I prefer simply signatures that don't draw too much attention to one particular user (which is why I also don't like text shadows). PS: @FIM: No worries with pings, always happy to feel needed Regards SoWhy 17:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent information, many thanks SoWhy- and I see it's been done already! So that, as they say, is that. Thanks everyone, a peaceful resultion, but with fruitful discussions. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 18:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I know you didn't threaten to report me to ANI, but I know it could have been a possibility if things got ugly(which they didn't, thankfully). I've changed my username, to something hopefully more unique. Pleasure interacting with you! SophisticatedSwampert (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)All's well that end's well! Just curious... But FIM, why did you suddenly alter your signature?I bet that the old one was visually appealing by a mile!And after coming across your new sig. for the first time at WT:RFA, I thought that you have secured one more follower!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Err, I completely missed SoWhy's advice!.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hah! I don't think they've noticed yet :D — fortunavelut luna 13:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually did but I wondered where you got such colors from. Maroon? Really? Only #7A2F2F is the right red tone! Also, if you are trying to imitate me, you forgot the small-caps Regards SoWhy 13:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The colours (inc. maroon!) are the same as they were before. No just lost the shadows and the superscript. — fortunavelut luna 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't have... Okay, the shadow was annoying, but the superscript was fine. I, too, once had a super-script signature Regards SoWhy 14:45, 29 June 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)

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. 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

"...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)

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 'easy' 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 [7] - 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)

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)

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)

NPOV issue

Hi, I'm asking you specifically as an uninvolved editor who seems to have their head screwed on to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pentecost. Each year Pentecost goes on the main page when it is celebrated (this year within 24 hours) and I am concerned about a spate of recent edits. I may be over-reacting. I just want outside opinions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater: I do apologise for the belated reply, which is very rude, particularly in view of the compliment you paid. But, I must recuse, without prejudice, etc., as I'm afraid that that discussion is way beyond my paygrade :) I can go about as far back as 325 C.E. before my ears go pop. But I do understand how some of the issues you have raised might be seen as of concern- this way is procedurally the way forward (as you know- apologies for sounding patronising!), unless behavioural patterns are highlighted, I guess. Best of luck- and thanks for the note! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologise! And I wasn't sure at all that this was the right way, so thanks for the reassurance! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater: Just a thought, but a good place to solicit input on content would be the WP:CHRISTIANITY, WP:JUDAISM, and WP:BIBLE wikiprojects- that way, you guarantee the input of 'experts' who know the historiography (or equivalent) but are also impartial in any particular dispute, as well (Ithink) any sub-projects. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Could You please help me?

I am on a wikibreak but I had to ask you this. One editer is making me feel discouraged for welcoming new users and it seems is now following my contributions. It all started today when they notified me and my co-editor that wiki is not a social network. I don't know exactly what I'm asking you but could you please help me in someway? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed and replied on your talk, @Dinah Kirkland:. Please don't be discouraged; but if you read that page, you might see how such a concern might be understandable. The good thing is, with a bit of editing work under your belt, it will be easy to shrug off, and you'll get a bit more laxitude too :) but until then... it could look like you're using Jimmy Wales' pet project as you own personal Instant Messenger! I also apologise in advance if I sound like a school teacher. I'm not. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It's Alright! And what is Jimmy Wales or instant messaging? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Because I do not know enough hete I have moved to http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dinah_Kirkland?useskin=oasis Hopefully there I will be able to do what I need and it is a social media network as well. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. Enjoy! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pedant of the month

Your 'Pedant of the month' award[8] just arrived, but we had to send it back because the pedantic awards committee could not agree on the exact wording on the certificate. That makes 486 times that this has happened. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Las Anod Article

Can you please explain why you choose to support the distributive edits of this article?

Las Anod is a town in Somalia. I born there, i live there, i should KNOW!

EXPLAIN YOURSELF PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagadhiig (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your distributive editing. If you continue to edit distributively, you may be suffering of bilocation. —PaleoNeonate - 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cagadhiig: Thank you, I will. You continually inserted unsourced original research into various artices against the advice of other editors. You were blocked for edit warring on one of these articles; bear in mind you had actually been doing the same on multiple pages. On your return from the block, you immediately recommenced the same behaviour, and, if it appears one has learned nothing from a block, then it is customary to assume the behaviour will continue unles stopped. So another preventive block is required. If you cease your edit-warring, and discuss the issues with others on the article(s) talk page(s), then it is likely that NeilN will take a favourable view. But at the moment, I'm afraid your disruptive editing on many pages takes up the time and resources of too many other editors, administrators, etc. As to the article content that you hold in dispute, please bear in mind that, much as we appreciate the important of local, specialised knowledge for ensuring accuracy in article, such edits still need to be sourced in reliable sources that provide in-depth and persistent coverage of the point(s) being made. What you were saying, being only based on your own personal opinion, and experience, might be true, but it is not verifiable- and unfortunately therefore, is an unencyclopaedic addition. So, until you can provide reliable sources for your changes- and, if you don't mind me saying, discussing them with your fellow editors, the situation you found yourself in two days ago will likely repeat itself; with, perhaps, increasingly grave consequences. Anyway, thanks for the (somewhat energetic!) note, and happy editing for the future! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I see now you have been blocked by User:Bbb23, which I guess is unfortunate if not unsurprising. Well; you may read this anyway. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh!

great minds think alike.Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Now it's more template than articel! :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The creator challenged my G12 deletion on my talk, and then announced recreating the thing. I had to follow the link. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "Cantdecideifimgonnacollidewithhopeormakemybridetheropeorjusthideinthedope"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Cantdecideifimgonnacollidewithhopeormakemybridetheropeorjusthideinthedope (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Linguist^talk|contribs 13:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Linguist: Well it seems academic now  ;) but thanks for this. I didn't read this before posting there, I'm afraid, so there might be some unnecesary verbiage. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rename-- gives me a headache to look at it.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For posterity :) or posterior!

*This is the second UAA report, for the record (originally, apparently, it was not 'a blatant violation of the username policy'). More to the point, as I said on their talk page, is an absolute refusal to acknowledge the issue. That does not bode well for the future, username change or no user name change. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Carmina Burana

Hi there Fortune, Empress of the World. The ESO is performing Carmina Burana this weekend. It's a helluva thing to see live. However due to a sudden bout of poverty I will not be able to attend :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ow that's a shame Diannaa, and I never have either (well, thank ** for YuuTube). Unfortunately, due to a bout of distance I won't get to see the ESO either :( very sorry to hear that. You would've thought they'd want to fill seats? Mind you- "Would the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands, and the rest of you, if you'd just rattle your jewelry"! Take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

O fortuna!

Velut luna!

bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

H'mmm. When you turn up, I think you're after the dogs. Here, have a 🍔, 🍟, and something for after 🍨 — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have talked to my banker and we have obtained some tickets in the cheap seats! Pity to sit with the plebs, we are normally in the dress circle loges!! it will be stunning — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Brillant! Handy to get on with your bank manager as well as you do, Diannaa  ;) shame about the damn' proles, though, what what! No idea of kulcher at all! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Call me uncultured, which should be obvious to anyone, but I sometimes actually prefer the cheap seats. The balcony can be quite lovely if you get the front row there and have more legroom. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And the loge seems more popular than the dress circle? Perhaps they're closer. @TonyBallioni: On culture, we used to have a verrry nice MP, this individual, who once (quite amazingly -but then, it was the eighties!]]), when being asked about homelessness, replied, "The homeless? Aren’t they the people you step over when you came out of the opera?." WoW! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A move

Can you shed some light on this.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What gems history throws up! Yes that's sightly odd; I can't even remember it, tbh. Teddy Bears indeed. According to this, I suspected it of being a hoax; I but possibly what you mean, Blades, is why did Legacypac take it upon themselves to move a sub-page into WP:DRAFT space? I should probably have removed the {{AFC submission}} tag when I moved it myself. However, it does beg the question as to whether the AfC Brigade is desperate for work, if they need to resort to pages like that. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Such moves are built right into the AfC handing templates as suggestions. It's a cute article. I've not evaluated it's notability or accurateness. Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The odd thing, Legacypac, is that I moved it at 14:54, so I don't even have the excuse of being drunk. Hopefully. Thanks for the technplanation though. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no doubt about the cuteness of the article!Though I have my own reservations about randomly moving user-space material to draft-space.As to the work-load of the AFC Brigade, the backlog of the submitted articles(currently 1834;AFCCON-5) is sufficiently high to keep the thoughts of developing non-submitted articles far away for a long-while!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

...for even the cutest of teddy bears ! :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 03:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

wow

Nice catch.Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Crikey! "Wow" from me too, Dlohcierekim- I just saw four spammers all writing the same spammy article- don't think my acceptance from MIT will be coming in anytime soon :D but someone's done a heluva lot more work on it than me. Look at that lot! More meat that a butcher's :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To Whom My Concern.

Hi,I Corrected The Things You Wanted Me To Fix.And,Can You Make My Bio Public?For When People Search My Name Up It Will Pop Up Please And Thank You.💯😎♥️ Roosevelt Harris-Williams (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Roosevelt Harris-Williams: No. Please see this page and this page for details as to why not. Briefly, however, Wikipedia user space is the place where editors can plan encyclopaedic articles based on neutral, third party independent sources. It is not a free web-hosting site for you to treat as LinkedIn to promote your C.V. Incidentally, those latter link go to the same place for a reason! Take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

About Ben Gummer

Hi, it seems like you've reverted my edit of Ben Gummer. I've taken pains to remove vandalism such as 'Cheerio Cheerio Cheerio' inserted on the top of that page just to realize that you reverted that to the previous version with vandalism intact. Next time I'd advise you to actually look and read the edits someone's made rather than just revert it just because it was edited by a non-member. --Daffy123 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daffy123: I advise you to read WP:ES; a fruitful piece on the efficaciousness of utilising edit summaries. Your current rate, of less than eight percent in your seven years' tenure, is unacceptable. Many thanks, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: Of particular interest might be H:FIES. "Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted." Take care :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hey would you take Canasta From Draft mode. please canastafox (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Kido56- are you writing about yourself? Please see our guideline on autobiography: 'Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged.' If you are in anyway connected to the subject or receive any form of remuneration, then that too is a conflict of interest. In any case, the reason I moved your article into DRaftspace originally was- as my edit-summary said- because it was 'Clearly not ready for article space as of yet'- by that, I meant it was clearly not finished. Although I see you have worked on it since, in fact you have only added <80 characters of text. There are stil entirely empty sections visible. This is wholly unencyclopaedic. So, unfortunately, the draft is no nearer to articlespace than before. Sorry about that. Incidentally, is Canasta Fox male or female? You address them by both 'him' and 'her' in the article. Take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your suggestion and care. I'll continue to improve Wikipedia!

Nguyenledonghai (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Richard Johnson Anglican School

Could you have a look at this and the possibly COI user editing there? Maybe engage her in a nice way if you think she is editing COIly? I don't feel as if I got through to her. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Well, we'll see. Hope all's well! (Sorry for the delay by the way- just been popping in and out of here today). — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you so much for all your help. :) Dawood Khan 16:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Nice work on Battle of Fréteval‎. Thank you also for all of the other articles that you have written such as Affinity (medieval) and Gregory's Chronicle. Well done! - MrX 14:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Fréteval

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Fréteval 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Declining db-spam tagging

1. Typo with one letter outright omitted; was meant to be It's just a short statement about the user. See giigke,cin and its RFD for the explanation :-)
2. I don't think that's really an issue; we don't outright delete articles (or even revdelete the offending revisions) just because someone spammed them in the past, as long as the spam were removed. Of course, exceptions can occur, and I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a bad idea, but it's normally not a problem, and anyway old revisions of userspace pages won't get indexed, so nobody's going to see the edit summary unless they go looking for the history of this userpage.

Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

OK re. #2; per #1 I thought it was Turkish or something! But 'the result of using a QWERTY keyboard and having your right hand one key too far right' makes some kind f sense I guess :) Cheers @Nyttend: — fortunavelut luna 11:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice on advice

All I know is that with the templating tools I have, if you try to warn user regarding a username, it states "{uw-coi-username} should not be used for blatant username policy violations. Blatant violations should be reported directly to UAA (via Twinkle's ARV tab). {uw-coi-username} should only be used in edge cases in order to engage in discussion with the user."

So yes, I think what I said was according to policy. And I really don't understand these IPs who have page watchers etc and admin supporters as though they have special privileges. If someone warns me and they made a mistake, I will tell them so and bring it to their attention. I would not threaten their editing privileges for doing so. NeilN is probably a great user but I'm not going to NOT warn a user for a violation because of what he says or thinks-- I issue warnings because of what I believe. And frankly I wasn't issuing a warning to the IP, I was just giving advice-- which I believe is correct. If someone has a company username, chances are they are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and the admins should than take proper action to freeze the account until they are aware of the rules. The IP issued a warning about the username on 14 March 2017, but it had no effect on the user and in fact they created a second account to continue making CoI edits through July.

It's a good day.

Oh and the first rule on UAA says: "This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked." Which would imply if a violation is blatant and serious the user should be immediately blocked. So again, my advice was accurate. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: Thanks for the template; please learn the profits to be had in mark-up. FYI, that particular IP has been heer longer than both of us, by a stretch; so if you are saying that you deliberately do not look at a user's talk prior to templating, then issues will almost certainly arise. The question here is your criticism, not actions- you need to reassess the former and continue the latter. BTW, what exactly is the point in splitting this cnoversation over two talk pages? — fortunavelut luna 15:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So I should not warn a user because they have been here longer than me? Should I just ignore violations of policy then? But in any case this does not seem as though it will lead to anything productive, so just take this as an apology without accepting fault, and have a good day. Really, do have a good day this isn't sarcastic. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador:, rest assured, I will take that in exactly the spirit with which it is offered. Luckilly we have a page on everyhing: WP:NOTAPOLOGY Incidentally, may I suggest you increase your usage of edit-summaries, per H:FIES. — fortunavelut luna 16:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks you for that PaleoNeonate, as usual  :) what's he so happy about? -the Leadership core just resigned en-masse?! — fortunavelut luna 16:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question, maybe the ritual blindfold and all the meditation —PaleoNeonate - 16:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm back/Need Help

I came back and left the Wikia(wasn't as good as Wikipedia) so I need slight help with my Draft page. Someone added a bunch of places that told me I needed sources so I added them in all except for one I couldn't find and I've seen pages with a CN before. That editor hasn't awnsered back yet so I was wondering if you could tell me if its alright. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Dinah Kirkland::--Hi, DK for a subject to be featured in a stand-alone article it must pass our verifiability requirements and notability requirements while being reliably sourced.The information in our draft is verifiable.So, it passes (1). But regrettably, it fails to clear the last two hurdles.Reference 1 is the book itself and Ref-2 is to the site which produced the film which.They both add verifiability but no notability.Ref 3 is a public-curated website Wikia.com with no guarantee for authenticity and fails the stringent requirements of WP:RS.As to Ref-4 see why circular referencing to WP is disallowed.Now, notability is generally acquired from being featured as the non-trivial subject of coverage of different independent reliable sources(critical reviews, news etc.)--These type of sources and corresponding coverage is fairly absent from your draft too.So, your draft cannot be main-spaced.As a side-note you can use the sources provided by 78.26.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know... all of this unfortunately as for the reference to Wikia that was simply for the picture and nothing else. However if it needs to be removed I will do so. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

78.26 got you loads sources  :) [9], [10]. It won't necessarily be the same article you envisage it now, as mostly they're quasi-/academic, and / or philosphical disquisitions into the perceived nature of the character. But it'll blow out WP:N like shot from a gun. — fortunavelut luna 16:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Si know she/he got me sources. I forgot about them heh... ^-^ whoops. Well when I'm done preparing for school (and done being lazy) than I'll put those in. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Dinah, if you can't view the text, or only partly on some of these links, let me know which ones you're interested in and I'll check my favorite library (which is extensive) to see if I can acquire them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

PS, the articles I create rarely end up as the article I envisage when I start. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see it all do not worry. I'm also very busy and forgot all about them. However I do need help getting rid of the Wikia link on the draft. Using the mobile version of Wikipedia can be a- can be very difficult sometimes... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that often Google books will give you a "preview" where you can view a few pages, but then they'll hide the stuff you're really after, or else they give a "snippet" view which is maybe one sentence. I know you'll have no trouble seeing my message. If you need my assistance, don't be in too much of a hurry, the library's holdings are extensive, but a lot of their older books are in storage, and it can take a couple of weeks for them to dig out of their warehouses. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes I understand now. Grazie (Thank you) Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Still need help with the Wikia link though... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wot is the Wikilink then? — fortunavelut luna 17:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

??? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry. http://alice.wikia.com/wiki/Dinah I simply used it for pictures of Dinah from American McGee's Alice and Alice Madness Returns... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I really only wanted to use the images and with the mobile version of Wikipedia it's very difficult and I don't have the option to upload. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:78.26 By the way I'm busy with work(and semi-busy with school) so when I have the time I'll get to adding the sources. You are welcome to do it yourself if you'd like but when I look over the sources I'll add them myself. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! However I do not think this article will work out... However I will see what I can do to keep this article alive and well. Dinah In Wonderland 22:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Canasta Fox

I deleted the article per WP:CSD#G3 and indeffed the creator. Honestly, if you're going to put online sources on your article, you might expect admins to click on them and check them out! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It was pretty slack, yeah. It started off as an AfD, after the creator moved it back to mainspace-

The references provided do absolutely nothing to indicate the notability of the subject. 'Recording Academy' is a 404. CBC Minor is a blog, with no mention of her. The House of Balloons, ditto. Likewise, the at-first-glance impressive array of blue linked songs, etc., she is supposed to have released are all to lists and dab pages with no mention of her at all. In fact all the songs and albums attributed to her are actually those of The Weeknd, a Canadian rapper not a South African youtuber. And if she 'released' covers, they have left no digital footprint. Her own blog appears to have only been started ~March this year. Moved to Draft space here. Creator moved it back later to article space with the statement that 'She is on youtube and verified on Twitter which means she is real'. Not that that had been a concern, otherwise a straight WP:G3 would apply, I imagine. A WP:BEFORE search indicates no coverage (under either name) by any third-party, independent, reliable sources at all. Completely fails WP:ANYBIO, merely a promotional puff-piece.

As I was writing I did a kind of double take... all that stuff they did in 2018 eh? Winning Grammies at 16? Yeeeeah. Take care, — fortunavelut luna 16:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)