Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, thanks Mabalu; apologies for the shortness earlier. Yes, Earwig is a great timesaver, but it's worth trusting your instincts with. It doesn't always pick out everything, as that article demonstrates. Nice content work too, btw. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fortuna, can you link me to the policy saying that linking to a youtube video is copyvio? Ethanbas ^(talk) 08:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: 'Do not include non-free files (copyrighted files lacking a free content license) on your user page or on any subpage thereof, per the non-free content policy. Non-free files found on user or user talk pages will be removed without warning and, if unused in a Wikipedia article, will be deleted entirely. You may also want to consider this response in the context of 'editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. It is probably safer to avoid mentioning Softlavender on your user page; misinterpretations are, shall we say, easy. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

FIM, that seems to miss the point. --Izno (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: WP:ELNEVER forbids us from linking to possible copyvios (except in the good faith case of "is this okay?"). Otherwise, linking to YouTube is fine. --Izno (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Your link does not uphold your interpretation; in fact almost conversely to what you suggest, it actually says 'External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[3] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright The conditions have nothing to do with 'good faith': 'manifestly' is the word used, and that is far more stringent. In any case, my link to what we can and cannot have on user pages stands; as does a further comment, which you should probably take as context, that linking to something with the intention of comparing another editor to it, could very well be seen as uncivil, to say the least. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The UP context is clearly about videos hosted on a Wikimedia server and included (in quotation) via the [[File:Example.ogg]] syntax, so no, it doesn't stand. As for that interpretation of external links, there is literally a discussion at WT:EL#ELNEVER: where does it apply? right now about the good faith use (also about YouTube)--you may feel it in your best interest to discuss there your assumption that I might not discuss a link to a YouTube video where I do not know whether the YouTube video is a copyvio or not. --Izno (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I saw the issue Fram was dealing with. Cheers for that though. OK, that discussion will (eventually!) clarify policy. Which, of course, tells us that it clearly needs clarifying, and therefore cannot be as cut and dried as you suggest. In other news, your last sentence was a trifle opaque: if you could break it down, that would be most satisfactory. Perhaps you mean that this is not the place for you to discuss the matter? If so, I heartilly agree :) take care. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I struggled to word that one the way I wanted: if you indeed believe that LINKVIO must be observed even in the event of the good faith question "may I?", then you may wish to discuss that topic there since the small consensus at that discussion so far is that I am indeed allowed to link to a possible copyvio if my intent is "may I use this link in 'x' place?". --Izno (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah actually, only WP:ANI has that banner. WP:AN starts with a sentence that says; This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. I had the same thought and was utterly amazed that they'd never bothered to read the banner. Then I read the AN banner. Much to my surprise, nothing about "experienced editors" on it. Even with that fact, it doesn't change the fact at all that they should know its not "admins only". Mr rnddude (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Mr rnddude. The error stems from the fact that I thought the discussing had taken place at incidents rather than notices :) but still a dumbass error to make. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw your comment on their talk page and thought you should know about this. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Great :) well it makes sense I suppose. I looked into the edits; didn't prove me wrong! Thank you, [{u|EvergreenFir}}. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

[1] ...can't win 'em all :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I usually get drawn into some obscure clergyman by finding out he was not a shining example of rectitude. The classic example is Roger Norreis, but Geoffrey (archbishop of York), Gerard (archbishop of York), or Osbert de Bayeux are also in the running for "least-likely-cleric-to-be-nominated-for-sainthood". Good work on Elias, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice articles! Yes they had an elastic interpretation of their calling some of those chaps didn't they. On Elias, I'm going to do a DYK, are you one of the authors? Not sure about the etiquette of these things Ealdgyth. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not consider my editing enough to make me one of the authors... it's all yours! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

He's outside your period, but I'd challenge anyone to beat Lancelot Blackburne. I might take a stab at making something decent of Edward Drax Free at some point, whose WP article really doesn't do him justice (and looks suspiciously like it's been plagiarized from a Victorian text, as I can't imagine any modern WP editor writing "allowed swine to desecrate the graveyard"). ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That's class. Abp of York and pirate. Carry on Dick eat your heart out! you will note, Iridescent, that I didn't ping you this time :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Drax Free was actually even weirder, although you wouldn't know it from the WP article—at least pirates-turned-bishops theoretically fit into a long tradition of military-officers-turned-clergy and of sinners-turning-to-the-church, whereas Drax Free seems to have been a genuinely irredeemable lowlife.(He was a lay preacher rather than ordained, but "biggest embarrassment to the church" must surely be Eric Gill. The current wording of his well-known religious views and subject matter were generally viewed as being at odds with his sexual behaviour is a rather coy way of putting "serial rapist whose victims included his sister, both his daughters, and the family dog".) I actually turned Echo back on just in case there's anything I need to know, although I'm only skimming the results periodically to see if there's anything I actually need to look at. DYK that when you have 99 unacknowledged messages, it stops pestering you with new notifications? ‑ Iridescent 18:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable :) and all the while desingning typefaces for Penguin. How looks must've deceived. But that's definitely a bloke born 150 years too late I think. "Good to see the church speaking out on social issues," as the feller said. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Funnilly enough, I was looking for a DYK earlier... although it's a pretty hardcore way of finding one.

Would you like to have your page protected for a short bit? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: It's a toughie. On the one hand, I get lots of comments from noobs regarding speedies; one the other, about six excellent editors have just wasted seconds of their editing lives looking after my page. Which was very kind, of course. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand, had the same thing happen to me. Does make it easy however to tag and bag the culprit if it's open. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep- the virtual fly paper, eh? Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Do either of you agree to hide that user's edits from the public? They are pure bad faith and even gross. 2600:1:F154:62EA:54A8:1704:69BA:7522 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

'99, RickinBaltimore that's a very good point- we know what lurid lifestyles my tpw's lead  ;) but others might be more faint hearted! Rick, any chance of getting rid? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits? What edits? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I told ya. Speed demon! Thanks very much though :) get yourself a cold one on me. Not literally on me; that would be hideous :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, WarMachineWildThing would probably appreciate it if you could make the edits on his talk page disappear too.LM2000 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, LM2000, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, MER-C, Thanks to all of you for watching, after a year and a half of harrassment, twisting my posts, and finally getting me blocked you'd think they would give up. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 13:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"lurid lifestyles", forsooth. I prefer "colourful" or "fascinating". Or "glamorous" (that would be stretching the definition, but a person can dream!) --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Elias Beckingham 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:Elias Beckingham for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. The reason I think your changes should be reverted is because those are relevant information to people who want to know about Kris Wu. Endorsements and modeling work are a huge part of an actor's job, especially in China. Philanthropic work is also relevant to a celebrity's profile. I have seen it in other pages. Good day. Everypart (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Everypart. Unfortunately, multiple experienced editors, including an administrator, have repeatedly found your additions to that article to be of no encyclopaedic value. Please desist from inserting yourself into the article again. Good day. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 05:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

So... no discussions? That's it? Even though this info exists in several articles? And I can't edit the article anymore even with information you will deem "relevant"? I thought the talk page was about discussion?

Also, it's terribly dismissive to label all my contributions as not encyclopedic. I only edited back certain things that I think is of encyclopedic value and that's worthy of a discussion at least. I have also added plenty of relevant things that you did not edit out so trying to say I only contributed irrelevant info is frankly not fair. Everypart (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Indeed, I'm sure you have much to contribute- although you seem to be having similar issues in other articles, according to your talk page.

I didn't mean you can never edit the article- is certainly not for me to decide that- but if you could stop pushing promotional material about the subject, that would be appreciated.

Your are correct in that the talk page is for discussions: discussions on how to improve the encyclopaedia, though, not on how to make the article show the subject in the best light possible :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 05:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Both Special:EmailUser and WP:EMAIL works. Broken nutshell (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Eh? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 {{refend}}
</div>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the laugh: [2]. I love starting my day out with humor! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to match the editing habits of the IP editor above to IP in the SPI investigation opened against 31.51.108.231, as well as User:Iniced. I, again, stand by my statement that phrases such as; "can I have your details"; "hi dick ass comer can I have your details"; and these[3][4] hardly constitute just "unsavory language". More like trolling, in which case it is safe to WP:DENY. Why don't we ask User:Favonian, whom reverted the editor[5][6] per WP:SOCK, as well as being harassed by the IP editor.[7][8][9]. All of which happened before you claim "unsavory language was first used." I stand by my point that good faith need not be assumed in that situation as well. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Affinity (medieval) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Brut Chronicle at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Brut Chronicle

added links pointing to Welsh, Verse, Legendary, Cadwalader, Aenus and Royal chancery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

SPID: 16056

---

BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----

Version: GnuPG v1

hQEMAwo8OE3GoWgLAQf/TKyzNFA64lFW0QuZA9naqhuvVoALvBxtAHoYL+Xr3KKl 8DcHSDH+pIaZ3aE4pTFbjufRTJAXpQbizaN5y8Xjrp6tJoGfwMxoFtMK/LuzQvT1 74OKANlkwWZsGOJKiTuj37x0ni5cWcYbQteqbSaWPkF9sURk+uiUTYFWUZv5i7eC PdzJx5cV+SEsrHoVVrOmF+k4CwlptpdgD5gKhblNXbFw6Ac8BMzWXpcs+8oCqZ1l ZvUXxXJn/hnXnbnkndtsJugU/4YDbEHxCxRKDvsp+S0Q0Eh8H2gGTwwcMGGlejr9 vHk/r2C/7SkODsHx1qTWBmkSBkWbcdFTvRaaT17R3NLpAa+8vGAi9R72PibUD5Nh wJ+6VnMQxXzBdYGxAhKB+xAvgU+G/9YbyOlONBIZRPw8RTfIyeARtOG1YI7WKrXW 50j+NMDG2sMn22JmrDKcuLxcc96m/t5Mdul6HNk5ytnZ3klv2qwKcy9x6QineIaP 1afmc3HQaPDGXMNqbqQClT13JYWpBs1QXCcYAtiynwU9jG5LnFJduWR1MdPiUvDv Yhg3gRvoWr4NIkqniEDIv2kGJDnOIoeJKIkcR+o9H9diCht+gNKhIN0GEoQcIn/9 zdtg9R2NvFJA73sBQ2SeMoo1AEzpd0rFbXbqQiMqqglo7MeYT2nTTlFZbLyUguCo q05lJH+J7iBSwxY490p/wNV4JxOhauuF2DdTYS26KqUrADyE3beHVafengIaBZ4y Mp3enmzZs/sHnb6xBxoLaqzDT7aXLtM4fvpYJuKuU6K55ob/hgLLxZ+88cVPwkUQ dK9IuPO88PZEhxLF5p4VooweZZ9pJgIvcJCw3WjzivBNou55apat7da9MFF+jXXY eBBODkoHUcL/LO/wI4sZxEgbsbxs8UZFBanq02KdbdEzDyfvGZeNfCsQjrJKwc3C mVsdNYg7z8ebD2NAIx4PFi/1vb1eYRW5P7rxQPD+LGzHOleBCwKBlNhkj0YXQbPk 0H5t8AwQidlZCyV4nA0nIuyYE4LF46ktVR7RnSwofOdQ12IIpVFHYdBMC0LEru3K 6SSLAdiKez6T30csCiI6Vsy5qKvj4QF0wMewITSAyZDhV2jwribWxdP20PNKaH1n CkeXxCBEmDkLy2/VkfIpORgrtE56+emxSBFt70MRIkyXz0UmyX+NMOdJDR4T57e5 NKPcH99ioWjNam6cBOpVt+jeJaeIAAh4jWQ= =mhLg

---

END PGP MESSAGE-----

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elias Beckingham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yash! -- Yash! (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi FIM, thanks for helping out at ANI. Could I persuade you to switch your one-click archiving to the newer version, which lists the name of the thread being archived in the edit summary? It is important for people watching the noticeboards to be able to see the name of the threads being removed (both on their Watchlists and on the edit history of the noticeboard). The current version of One-click archiver is here: User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver. (The one you are using is this one: [10].) Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Your wish is my command  :) but unfortunately it seems to have ballsed up my archiving completely now! It said the script contained errors and now I've lost the 'Archive' option totally... — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Find a wiki-techie to help you. You could either post on User talk:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver, or else ping your own favorite wiki-techies, or enquire on WP:VPT. Hope that helps! Softlavender (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There's probably some relevant comment to be made about the size of this talk page which contains threads from six months ago. Anyway, fixed a typo[11] try refreshing. Also your script page is using some very deprecated syntax - try looking up the new instructions for importing scripts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages going back six months, eh? :D Anyway, I eventually found the script importer, found lots of scripts, very colourful, OCA not among them, going back to my old one. Thank you everyone for the- help. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

43k, 335k, just sayin' :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

If you wanted to compare size instead of length you should have done so at the time. As is so often the case  :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hey Fortuna,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But thanks anyways, User:Ksekoliara

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

Thanks in advance User:Ksekoliara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bonville–Courtenay feud you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

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

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

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

Arthur Lawrence Hellyer Jr.

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

WER v REW

added a link pointing to Charles Grey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the note Boomer Vial. I wouldn't say 'wrong'- after all, in this place, generally interpretation is key. But, yes, I regularly nominate them for deletion on these grounds, and yes, they regularly get deleted because of that (four examples from just yesterday, by four different admins: [12], [13], [14], [15]). Having said that, you're an experienced editor- if you've been doing it that way for so long, it can't be that 'wrong,' can it?! Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages East March and George Neville. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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