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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^*Not Before Coffee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, if he is Domenico Toschi you might want to try the articles in the French and Italian Wikipedia for starters. That is also the name for him given here. The dates for him becoming a cardinal in 1599, and his titular church of San Pietro in Montorio, appear right - eg [2] - which give some credence to the other dates. No doubt there is some fluidity between Tosco and Toschi. Some sources in Google Books suggest he is also "di Reggio" or "dei Mascheroni". Also this looks interesting. At worst, machine translation may assist, or you might be able to enlist the help of an Italian speaker. Hope that helps. And I wonder if there is any link with Pier Francesco d'Jacopo di Domenico Toschi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Wbm1058:

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your 'Pedant of the month' award[3] just arrived, but we had to send it back because the pedantic awards committee could not agree on the exact wording on the certificate. That makes 486 times that this has happened. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For posterity :) or posterior!

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

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

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

O fortuna!

Velut luna!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks (belatedly) TonyBallioni, that's very refreshing :) International Medieval Congress yesterday. It would've come in handy! And whiiiich also is why I seriously need to cut down on-wiki time and do some actual work! — fortunavelut luna 12:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Fréteval you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

78.26 got you loads sources  :) [4], [5]. It won't necessarily be the same article you envisage it now, as mostly they're quasi-/academic, and / or philosphical disquisitions into the perceived nature of the character. But it'll blow out WP:N like shot from a gun. — fortunavelut luna 16:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yo Fortuna, hope all is well. I saw that you restored the "fascism" ideology label at Nordic Resistance Movement - thank you. They are seriously scary people, openly neo-Nazist, and I don't particularly want to start researching their own websites to see what they call themselves, but academics talking about them in Swedish media refer to them as fascists and Nazis, so I am confident that the label is relevant. That fascism should be a world-view rather than an ideology was a rather peculiar argument from the other editor, and I don't quite understand what it was supposed to mean... not to mention that fascism is, unambiguously, a political ideology. Anyway, I have noticed a spate of activity around articles about far-right parties and proponents in the Nordic countries recently, both in terms of adding misleading info and white-washing history. I can't say whether the ideological labelling/de-labelling of the NRM is part of that, but in any case it's good to have more eyes on the articles. --bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks ((u|Bonadea}, yes, although I don't know the subject, the somewhat wild claims made about 'world views' convinced my that WP:CB applied, if in a small way. Hope you're well! — fortunavelut luna 12:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All is well here, thanks. :-) Trying to get some research done during the summer break from teaching... I also don't think I thanked you properly for your help a couple of months ago - there has been one similar incident which was dealt with very quickly, but I think our mutual friend is on vacation, too. Long may it last! :D --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In detention at their kindergaten, hopefully! ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna,

Thanks for the AfD closure you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS. You probably want to be aware that the nominator also created and listed all of the co-nominated articles separately. These would then also need to be closed for the closure to be fully effective - see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 5#Sigma_60mm_f.2F2.8_DN_Art on downwards to find these. I would fix this, but I already !voted on them. Cheers, and happy editing! Samsara 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna. I was here about the same issue actually. I dont have much experince with AfD, so I only wanted to ask if it was better to close the discussions, or to relist them. Thanks.

@Samsara: Hi. I hope you dont have any hard feelings for me. I believe that the articles were not noteworthy enough for the an encyclopaedia, thats why i took them to AfD. I would call it "difference of opinion (or maybe philosophy)". See you guys around. :)

PS: It would be easy to find all the nominated articles at User talk:Chevy111. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi usernamekiran - yeah, about Chevy... she hasn't been online since those nominations were filed. I'm a bit worried that she's been scared off by feeling that her work was not appreciated. Maybe something to keep in mind for next time - I hope we get her back, because she was a rather hard-working and appreciated contributor. Samsara 14:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: gosh. I didnt know that. Do you think it would be okay if I send her an email for apologising personally? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: That is certainly a possibility. Just don't expect an immediate reply, as there may be other reasons she's away. Also make sure that you leave a ((ygm)) template on her talk page, as she's been here for over seven years (and her email address may therefore have changed). Given that possibility, consider additionally leaving your message on her talk page.

Per convention, I will also just ping Chevy111 about our exchange here as I'm not sure the link to her userpage triggers the ping.

All the best, Samsara 16:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Samsara. And I was going to ask not to mention this conversation to Chevy111. Ad yes, mentioning/linking a talkpage (like above), and ((noping)) dont trigger a notification. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Install ((subst:iusc|1=User:Ais523/adminrights.js)) on your local.js You already posses that! and have a look at this this thread.Who said processes are necessary?Winged Blades ^Godric 17:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blades, yep, sounds fun- in a Palace Coup/ But Might Get Overthrone Tomorrow kind-of-way  ;) but the AN link doesn't go anywhere, and I can't find that section in the most recent (?290) archive? — fortunavelut luna 17:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a re-look!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, Blades? I am being dense I know :) but I still don't get it. It was just a throwaway remark, based on what the page sez (and which in view of [6] I thought that they would already know!). As for the 'admin.js'...God knows! I installed a load of scripts a while back, wholesale; must've been in there. It certainly doesn't seem to be doing anything! Still don't know why I should've installed it and then looked at that thread. Although I haven't had my cuppa yet: that might help. — fortunavelut luna 07:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!.....I assume you've not got the script in working conditions.(It actually encases any user-name/signature associated with any sysop in a blue-shaded box).Anyway the thread looks like this to me.Well....Mis-pings can be interesting!!(Check the wiki-syntax of the section!)Winged Blades ^Godric 08:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I realise that. Now. After posting! Here's the screen for your personal elucidation :p :D

Still not had that cuppa. — fortunavelut luna 08:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's one helluva pic Blades :D brilliant! Well, I suppose it's pure WP:NOTDEMOCRACY in action! — Kingto be... 08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get it! (Eventually)- they used 'u|' instead of 'reply|'! Yeah that was fun. "Ascent to the throne" indeed! — fortunavelut luna 08:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the poll. And for the reminder that my motives will be questioned at every turn at RfA if I decide to go for it.

As for the user rights that I requested, in a recent RfA I learned about the Page Mover right, which I previously didn't know about and I really could have used a long time ago (I have done a lot of work over at Requested Moves), and when I was researching it I ran across some other user rights that I thought might come in handy (this is why I got them all at the same time). I had previously noticed pending changes on a couple of articles I frequent and didn't understand why I couldn't review them (even though they were obvious), so that was more of a "if this comes up again I'll be able to deal with it" thing. Since Chris' comment I've bookmarked the pending changes log and will check on it from time to time and will help out there to prevent backlogs developing.

As for rollback, after using it honestly it is very underwhelming. Yes it makes undoing obvious vandalism a one click job (which I thought would be useful), but I'm not that lazy, and the lack of an option to add an edit summary is a real deal breaker for me. I have avoided using it since getting it and really don't intend to much. I'd rather use Twinkle's rollback function or just undo it manually and take the extra couple clicks and have the opportunity to add an edit summary for why I rolled it back in the first place. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 15:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for the note. I knew that was extremely mean-spirited, when I wrote that: but the bald truth will help you more than a flattering lie, hopefully! But yeah, to some people, there's no way that would be a coincidence, and you'd never convince them  :) but I what you mean. Asking for one just highlights the others. Anyway, you got, and more importantly will continue to get, good advice- I think you know who those guikty parties are-! so get some solid work done over the next few months and I reckon you won't even need ORCP. Best of luck — fortunavelut luna 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS- re. Rollback summaries, if you have a look here, it shows how to add an e/s manually (although tbh that looks so labourious that it probably defeats the object of having such a quick too in the first place!) but there are also some scripts you can install that give you the option. I use one, but I can't find it in my sub-page atm (it might be one of the ones listed there- but I think not- the names don't ring a bell). Anyway, they do the job fine. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 15:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you and the new editor with a quick grasp of deletion policy edited this after it was closed. Do you want to remove it or shall I? Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Doug Weller; I don't know about the other editor (whom you assess correctly- and compare his and the article creator's user pages, per WP:SHARE))- but I posted before it was closed, and got an edit conflict. Feel free to revert to this version, which is the one I posted in good faith, warts and all and including typos etc. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 18:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Incidentally- any reason I am solely favoured by this suggestion? I note you have yet to enquire of the before-mentioned party similarly. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda got ahead of both of you and reverted it to the version where it was when it was closed. You shouldn't really edit closed discussions after they have closed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SkyWarrior 18:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyWarrior: Thank you for your unnecessary input. I did not do what you have suggested; although of course feel free to presume otherwise. — fortunavelut luna 18:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that. I only posted to you because I was only concerned about your view, and I think I was right. It was absolutely out of courtesy and valuing your opinion. Not to be rude about a new editor, but if it had been just them I wouldn't have asked. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to your comment on my talk page. You suggested to use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. As you can see, I have started two sections in the talk page of the article - Ampalavasi. However, those who are reverting it back are not discussing anything in the talk page, instead they revert it to an earlier less-informative version with erroneous information. It will be better to inform them also. Thank you __पुष्पकः (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article talk. But FYI, those two notices are purely informative / advisory. — fortunavelut luna 14:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to improve the article. You want to keep an erroneous version. Why is this so? --पुष्पकः (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that the one URL does no thave everything, but almost everything I looked at was copyvio from one page or another. It looks like the entire page is cut and pasted from various sources. No objection to a U5, as long as it goes. Meters (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, Meters, I relied too much on a tool? If so apologies are due you. Would you like to make it a 'multiple' criteria? — fortunavelut luna 06:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. By the time I realized I should have used the multiple URL line you'd already picked up on it. I found bits of it on paid essay sites, and all over, so it's a real dog's breakfast. I won't worry about it unless it's still there tomorrow. Meters (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, fortuna! Sorry for being inactive, it's all cause I am on a long summer break, which restricts me from editing. I am afraid though, tha this period of absence will leave a major mark on my reputation as an editor. I will though return to normal action at 7-12 of August. See you! 109.240.63.137 (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this was my fault that I did not log in. The above info is about me. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo the FriyMan  :) good to hear from you. Glad you're OK and just having a summer holiday  :) lucky. No worries about your reputation. It sits, in a small box, waiting for you, unopened, exactly how you left it before you went away. In fact,like a wine, it improves with age! Keep in touch! удачи! — fortunavelut luna 15:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well see you! Thanks for caring though. It's quite weird and strange that Coffee still have not returned here. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 16:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TNT  :) not as allergic as used to be! — fortunavelut luna 10:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fortuna! During one of the past RfAs I found a tool, which would show your MfD vote accuracy. Now I can't find it. Could you help me to find this tool? Thanks. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 20:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FriyMan:, was it this? It's for WP:AFD; don't think there is one for MfD. — fortunavelut luna 06:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. This is what I meant. Thanks! Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 08:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to respond to this: [7]. I mean, that's the textbook definition of a COI, and being paid to create an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: It's off page one, isn't it?! Apart from just WP:PAID, WP:COI, with side helpings of WP:DOG (OK, that one was cheating), WP:CRYSTAL, and for desert, shall Sir try WP:IDHT?! I was sympathetic to them before we knew who they were- all those deletions notices- but frankly- if they're not even broadcast yet (whoever 'they' are), then a 168-hour holiday at AfD probably calls. They've got some sources- but it's not altogether convincing. What say you? — fortunavelut luna 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'd say kick the COI stuff from AN to COIN. A batch AfD based on failing both GNG and NOTSPAM might be worthwhile as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh uh. It's wearing. Although that is the WP-equivalent of being passed from one Vodaphone operative to another :D I replied on AN. — fortunavelut luna 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Fortuna, I'm not speechless often but I couldn't find the words to respond to that. Barret Jackman said it best for me though: [8]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's classic :) 'whaaaaaaat???? He's miming wot we're all thinking! — fortunavelut luna 17:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I spent a ridiculously long time trying to phrase a response but was ec-ed by Fortuna (darnit!) so I just added a terse note about PAID. I don't see how the COI can be much clearer - as you say, textbook example. --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)^Ironic! Ow Bonadea sorry about that. I'm sure yours was more insightful than mine. Apologies! — fortunavelut luna 18:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just more verbose :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last response might be the definition of WP:IDHT. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Yes. --bonadea contributions talk 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now this: [9], [10]. Any guesses as to the identity of the new account? I have RL things to do for a bit, so I'll stay away from the sockpuppet theatre... --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need help in dealing with a user. He/she doesn't seem to understand what's neutral point of view, and is insistent on deleting every non-positive news about Kris Wu and adding only positive news, even though it is sourced and unbiased. He/she also deleted comments that talk about his/her past edits like: [11]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.48.0.203 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vigilence, 197.48.0.203, I agree. I'm not sure your AIV report will be successful, as it probably couldn't be described as 'blatant vandalism,' but I understand where you're coming from. — fortunavelut luna 11:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have prophetic powers. I would have been quite satisfied with 110 - 10. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and blessings be upon him —PaleoNeonate - 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen328, and best of luck in your new "career"-!

And, PN, bless you my son. — fortunavelut luna 07:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, on a related subject, FIM I see you everywhere, closing AfDs, writing articles, closing debates and having a general helping of WP:CLUE. So, can you guess what my follow-up question to that is going to be? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ritchie333: I think before you ask any questions at all, I'd like to go and have a littl'un  ;) deal?! — fortunavelut luna 10:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish Ritchie would stop getting all our best editors to RfA so that they inevitably leave or is that the plan.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least part of [12] is scratched into my mirror  :) — fortunavelut luna 10:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: It's safety in numbers. Same reason if you get one estate agent on a street, they'll breed and soon there'll be 5 all next door to each other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. If you feel you have addressed all the outstanding comments from the now closed ACR then there is nothing in the A-class procedures that would prevent you for re-nominating it and I encourage you to do so. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your time and effort to improve Wikipedia. I had spent lots of time to present accurate information of the subject providing links for everything including the newspaper sources. You just went ahead and deleted everything. This is not fair in particular when sources were provided for everything. Please edit text if you find anything overrated, but don't remove all together. This is against growth of Wikipedia which we all like. -- TestBBSR — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestBBSR (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TestBBSR: Thank you for your message. Please refer to my previous edit-summary for my detailed reasoning; also bear in mind that the "growth of Wikipedia" does not mean it is a free-for-all for hagiographical, non-neutral, unevenly written, irrelevant trivia, CV's or quasi-Linkedin pages containing every piece of information ever found on the subject. Incidenatly, if you do personally know the subject professionally, you may well have a conflict of interest that prohibits you from editing the subject neutrally. Thank you, and happy (objective!) editing. — fortunavelut luna 14:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please spend some time and patiently read the text and sources from where they came from. Some matter is sourced from Odia newspapers that you may not have access to. Most of the text written can be found from Internet search. I understand and agree with you on neutrality, etc. while at the same time accuracy is also important. I will revert to a prior version and then try to edit text further as soon as possible. You can also edit to help. But, please have patient and let us be careful of over policing. Let us work together for the growth of Wikipedia. Thanks for the understanding. --TestBBSR — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestBBSR (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've opened a thread here: [13]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Your editing removed many portions of notability of the subject including, editorial board, conference chairmanship, distinguished lecture, etc. which are not trivial. Also the following which the subject has been sincerely engaged for last several years is worth adding as International goodwill activity which is not typical for thousands of Professors in the planet. I can't devote same amount of time as you to go back and forth here. Every matter was sourced, so I am not sure why you have been ruthless here. I have read many Wikipages which have these kind information and tone, so your ruthless action is unjustified.

Help to provide accurate information. But don't suppress information. Thanks for the understanding. --User:TestBBSR

• TestBBSR, please read our policies re: WP:NPOV and WP:COI very carefully. Fortuna is right, and the continued use of the article in a promotional vein won't stand. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you think the above Section is promotional then, let us revert back to the version which didn't have the above portion. Please note removing EiC of IEEE periodicals, Conference Chairmanship is not right as these are significant notoriety of the subject. As example refer to the Wikipage of contemporaries like Eby Friedman, Vasant Honavar, etc.--TestBBSR — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestBBSR (talk • contribs) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've edited this. Is it my imagination or is there a lot of OR in it? Are those your dogs, by the way? Doug Weller talk 10:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yes- I think there certainly is. I can't believe I declined a CSD tag but didn't otherwise improve the article, very poor.

Yes they are- at least was- the one on the right is no longer with us. — fortunavelut luna 11:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, my wife's 17 year old Yorkie deteriorated so badly last month we had to put her down. I'll take a further look at the A.U.E. article. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happened to ours to. Horrible journey to have to make. On a lighter note Doug Weller good work with the AUE thing there- I was working on the same lines, but ended up getting about three edit-conflicts  :) quite pleased I was removing the same as you, almost to the word! Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 12:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I've posted to the talk page, perhaps you could back me up there. I think it's worth an article, just needs a much better one. The article creator is a problem, see Murder of Sarah Halimi and the material I removed. My miniature poodle is almost 15 but still walks two miles a day. She was an agility dog though and had lots of exercise and training and proper dogfood. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: We've been lucky though really, because even with stella, all our dogs have lived to ripe old ages, well over their average, and can't ask for much more than that can we? They're troopers through, the old ones! :D You know, I see what you mean about the article creator. Clearly they need to urgently and thoroughly digest OR and SYNTH, with a healthy side of RS. Funnily enough- it wouldn't be so bad if they only wrote about say inanimate things- T34s, perhaps!- but everything they have written so far has been not quite BLPs, but all with a heavy BLP-content: gangs, massacres, murders, etc- which read highly tendentiously, even if that's not how is intended. That's partly the (mis)use of sources, and partly language, I suspect. A couple of their earlier articles show that with a bit of cleanup, they become OK (e.g.). — fortunavelut luna 13:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Thank you for welcoming me to the Wikipedia community. I noticed my draft article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Applied_Systems, was tagged for "speedy deletion." I do work for the company and therefore have a conflict of interest but I have attempted to write the article as factually as possible. I welcome your feedback on the specific content that is in violation and any advice on how to have an article published for Applied Systems. I would like to point out that several of the equity firms (Vista Equity Partners, Bain Capital, Hellman & Friedman LLC and JMI Equity) that have owned or currently own Applied Systems have existing Wikipedia pages. I understand I can contest the speedy deletion however in reading the how-to help article, it wasn't terribly clear on how to do this. I did not see a "contest speedy deletion" button on the page. Thanks again for your feedback.

Bennieandthejets (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bennieandthejets:. Thanks for the message. Right. Yesterday at 18:58 I alerted you to the fact that your page was liable to be deleted. From that point the page had a big tag on it with a big blue 'Contest this deletion' button  :) that was your opportunity to.... contest that deletion. You didn't? Ah- because at 19:05 an administrator deleted the page as advertising (please see WP:PROMO for more on that). Then today you recreated the page- very similiar to how it was yesterday I think? To answer your original question, that is why there is no 'Contest this deletion' button on your page- because it is a new page. And hasn't been nominated for deletion again. Yet.

Incidentally, you raise another important issue there- if you work for the company you are writing about, then there is not only a conflit of interest, but without declaring your relationship clearly on your user page, it would be a breach of your conditions of use for editing here. Please check out WP:DISCLOSEPAY- I think the instructions are pretty simple? To be honest, one probably should not create articles with which one has such a close connection- even if one manages to impartiality, the suspicion will always exist, I imagine, that the company is merely promoting itself with your assistance. Someone once said, perhaps brusquely, but with an admirable simplicity that rather sums up yours others' positions, that one should perhaps "wait until someone who has no CoI thinks your organisation is notable and writes about it here." Thanks again for the message, Bennieandthejest. I hope you find this helpful; I hope you follow the advice; and I hope you anjoy your time here. Take care, — fortunavelut luna 16:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And its back ... — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for the information you left on my sandbox about speedy deletions. However, I do not see a "contest speedy deletion" button on my sandbox that the information refers to. I read through the guidelines for sandbox use and do not understand how my page was in violation. I am new to editing Wikipedia and appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrar22 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'm here to inform you that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth and honour (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Truth and honour (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O Fortuna, when you pruned the cruft from Cascade School you left a partial sentence and some unsourced stuff - I don't know if you meant to remove that as well or if it was actually salvageable, and I don't feel like looking into the article history and sources myself, so I'll just serve you a small troutlet as a heads-up :-)

Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bonadea; although usually Friday is for fish  ;) I think I'm cracking up. Leaving stuff like that, and RickinBaltimore had to stamp on me up there for nominating an entire demographic as a BLP. Ffs... take care! Thanks for the note though. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you are... *gasp* ... human? --bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography is a lvl 1 warning, which is insufficient for someone who has already created two autobiographies. Please don't accuse me of 'clear' WP violations. And please don't revert my talk page comments any more. --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: No, if they had ignored the previous one, then you up a level. You do not hit them with as many warnings as edits made, as I said, that is pure WP:BITE. You know, less of that would mean less of your edits getting reverted. Carry on, and they will. Problem? ANI is your friend. Possibly. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how warnings work. If someone makes an egregious violation, you can give them a warning from 1-4. The user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the fact that they simply created two autobiographies not on the level of COI, but on the level of vandalism. Do we have to wait for them to make 4 or 5 autobiographies before we can ban them? Next time mind your own business, because it is certainly not your role to revert my warnings. You are not an admin as much as you like to act like one. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you desist with the egregious personal attacks. No-one is 'being an admin' or -trying to be an admin'(except possibly for those who rejoice in templating?). I agree "not here" probably applies- but that wasn't under discussion. Yes, you can go from 1-4- but not without the first and something happenng before the last. Otherwise, you omit the first. That's how warnings work. I've told you the way to prevent these discussions taking place- whatever the impression you mean to give, you're going too fast. That's advice, you know? — fortunavelut luna 19:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you removed a section of UFO Kidnapped, I think this should be included, because even though yet this section does not have any sources it the information is important for the article. There are lots of articles that do not yet quote sources, but still cite their info, so I think it should still be on the page. I am trying to hire someone to make some YouTube videos comparing both YCDTOTV and UFO Kidnapped, that will show scenes from both shows, but I haven't found anyone yet to do it, and I do not yet know how to do it by myself. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think closing that was a little premature, and I certainly think there was some consensus, outside of the creator and a fairly obvious meat/sock puppet, to get the thing out of mainspace. Any thoughts? Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)--I reviewed the disc. and I could not find any concensus to draftify et al.NC (though a NAC) was the best possible close--in the circumstances.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Affinity (medieval) 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:Affinity (medieval) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Hawkeye7, thanks for that- as it happens, the GA page doesn't seem to reflect a need for any further work to be done to the article? -I am, yours, once again n confusion-! — fortunavelut luna 13:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No further work is required to bring the article up to GA standard; it has been assessed as being of GA standard. Some work would be required to bring it up to A class or Featured. I have some concerns about the footnoting, specifically footnotes 1, 3, 7, 19, 24, 32 and 33 use "pages" or "pp" when "page" or "p" is meant. The citation templates are not consistently used, so we get anomalies like footnote 11. My main concern with the article is that it is entirely about Britain. Indeed, it is in the category "Medieval England", and I tagged it as being about British military history. There is nothing in the article though that says that affinity was a purely English custom that has no equivalent elsewhere, or that the article is purely about England. That would represent a flaw in its comprehensiveness that would doom it at FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right thanks for that then Hawkeye7. Glad everything short of a FAC is OK ;) I think we'll leave that for sometime in the future - thanks for the heads up though. I had just wondered why this message said 'On hold,' that's all. Bot problem perhaps? Thanks for your work on it in any case. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 02:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a police station with 1,200 officers, there would be more than one bent copper among them. If you follow recent desysopings on Commons you wouldn't be surprised. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: to be honest, I wasn't that surprised- to have been surprised would have been to ignore your every warning over the last year or so!- but for the purpose of supplying you with the name of the possibly-WP:UPE admin...? — fortunavelut luna 08:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured I thoroughly investigate anything I get to hear about. But bad apples in big barrels are often as slippery as eels in a Fischfass. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 23:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Dolly Rudeman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thomas Neville (died 1460) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Neville (died 1460) 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats! On another note, remember Hyperboreangiant, who BLAH BLAHed something on your talk page? He now has his own SPI. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Master race, huh?" ;) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: Hey no problem. Thanks for those words. Although it's possible that it makes me sound arseholy too :p Now, first things first, if someone really wanted a dissection of their editing history, the best person I can think of is (extremely) firm and (pretty) fair. I've seen it done; it's rather like an autopsy dissection, but, ultimately, it's better to know the worst rather than the best, wouldn't you agree? But for my overall, at a glance, impression: although your account was created back in 2012, your edit history only really exists from January this year- the previous four years have less than fifty edits between them. So clearly that is insufficient tenure at this point (I'm kind of looking at this like an ORCP, in spite of what you said). Good use of edit summaries. Good quantity of edits, of which a good percentage are in article space. At the moment I see about a third of them are automated- that seems to be of increasing importance in people's deliberations these days. I think that's because it might indicate a reliance on bots, twinkle etc to do one's writing for one. But some decent content creation should see those fears away, and I see you've got a few decent articles under your belt (as well as substantial contributions to extant articles). And I'm sure this will be popular  :) So that's all pretty good, just two things to suggest. One- obviously! -get more (the more is always the merrier!), and secondly, perhaps try and get a couple of GAs and DYKs out of them; they're rather symbolic, but they tick the 'content creator at a glance' box. And they emphasise your ability to write decent prose, which would ameliorate any concerns about use of automated tools. Minor issue with the PD stuff on one occasion; you were clearly correct, but t's probably worth covering yoursef from the beginning with that kind of thing (attributive edit summary, for instance)- that should pre-empt that kind of thing.

Only ~150 edits to the main admin areas (AIV, ANEW, RFPP, UAA)- and only eight to ANI. Now that's had balance to get right, and I'm not sure one can ever win really. If one posts there too much, one's a drama-whore, but not enough, and one's knowledge of essential admin processes can/will be called into question. so it depends very much on the quality of your remarks there- were they ultimately necessary, were they drive-by, or did they inflame a situation- see what I mean? Having said that, there's also signs of an interest in behind the scenes areas. Your CSD log isn't bad; but it's been rather augmented by those User:Prinsipe Ybarro pages last month. Just on that kind of thing, the log can be useful as a means of keeping track of articles. For instance you tagged A7 onto Nitesh Yadav, which was certainly fair enough at the time. However, you seem to have missed a trick here, where the speedy was removed by the creator. I daresay being a fifteen-year old App developer is a credibe claim of significance though, and I make no judgement who was in the right. But be mindful that that's the kind of thing an RfA will probably pick up on and ask you to justify.

Also, in your original request you mention an interest in investigations and the whole murky world of Operation Phoenix WP:SPI, why not get involved in that? I think- and I'm not as sure as I know I should be- but I'm under the impression that they generally need clerks there more than they need admins on most days. You might think about putting your name down at soe time in the future. Although unfortunately just watchlisting pages isn't enough to demonstrate involvement, and with only ?two edits to the SPI case page, you'll need to get involved a lot more. As with so much around here, consistent productive involvement = a clear demonstration of competency. User:GoldenRing might be able to tell you more about that, as I believe he still does both. But to end on a (more) positive note, your talk page (and latest archive, which is as far back as I could be arsed to go!) shows good communication and a willingness to WP:ADMINACCT (which editors sometimes have a habit of forgetting applies when one caries out a quasi-admin duty, whether one is actually a mopper-upper). Barnstars from admins and socks?! -It don't get better than that  ;)

Hope all this helps. Best of luck! — fortunavelut luna 16:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what it is I still do both of - if you mean SPI, my involvement is, and always has been, very occasional. GoldenRing (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. It is very helpful, insightful, and humorous as well. But I would have used the word "nosey" instead of "arseholy".
Basically, as I dont have a goal to become an admin, or any other "particular" goal; my contributions are sort of scattered, and may seem random. Basically, I am trying to "improve the enwiki in ways that I can (that I am familiar with)" so yeah, it is as broad as it can get. My activity has decreased again, but when I was active, my contributions through NPP/R made the scope even more scattered.

And yes, this contribution is going to be my most popular one I think lol. But that article needs a lot of work, and so time too. Time is something that has turned to be a very scarce resource for me. That is also the same reason for my increased automated edits. I think, in recent past, most of my semi-automated edits were done while reviewing new pages. Even though I know templates for almost all of the maintenance tags, it is a lot convenient to use Twinkle for that. And sometimes when I am free, but not in mood for "writing", I choose Huggle. It has been increasing my auto-edit count. Thankfully, these are the only automated edits that I do. No AWB, or AfD listings ans similar stuff.

As I dont have the goal to run for RfA, I get a lot of mobility. I am not "obliged" to contribute to closing RfCs, AfD stats, or the expected areas; yet I can contribute there whenever the situation calls for it.
For now, I am thinking to stick to only NPP/R, WP:SPY, and WP:MAFIA. NPP/R tends give out a fair amount of knowledge, editing skills, and CSD/AfD stats. Whereas the two wikiprojects are good for content creation in old articles, as well as for creating new articles like Draft:National Photographic Interpretation Center, and Robert M. Huffstutler. But because of the secretive nature of both these wikiprojects (espionage, and organised crime), getting reliable sources is very difficult. I have been trying to get more RS for Robert's article since ages, but I have been unsuccessful so far.
PS: You should take a look at this: User:Usernamekiran/sandbox3.

Thanks a lot again. You taking time out for my request, and then putting your observations in words means a lot to me. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information regarding a topic you've previously commented on and expressed an interest in has been posted to that article's talk page found → Here. Please feel free to peruse the information I've provided at your earliest convenience. Any additional input or feedback you might have on that topic would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Spintendo^Talk 05:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you have just cleared my sandbox. Would you clarify, please? Is it a standard procedure to clear one's sandbox with no info provided?--Hh1718 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do you reckon?

• Special:Contributions/Fortfive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Accopulocrat/Archive

51.9.185.74 (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@51.9.185.74, yes I see what you mean. Thanks for this. An overarching interest in genocides, certainly. But can you be more specific? Thanks for your work here. — fortunavelut luna 06:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't, as all of puppeteer's contributions seem to have been deleted. Thanks for pruning the more obvious OR. 51.9.185.74 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you are right if you meant that the tone was too formal. Wasn't a template though! Anyways the comment is appreciated even if it would be better in my talk page in order not to add irrelevant stuff to another user's talk page. (my quaintness maybe). Anyways, appreciated. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was rather in contrast to GoldenRing's comment above yours  :) anyway, good luck in the new job. — fortunavelut luna 16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! For the contrast do not worry, the permission was granted after GoldenRing's comment --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gregory's Chronicle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can let sb stew in his own juice for a while now. Nick and I have both finally responded to his jibes, taunts, threats, and demands. He is now walking perilously close to a long block that won't even require an ANI discussion, but neither of us really want to see that happen. ANI would finish him off completely.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kudpung, that sounds extremely reasonable. Fiat justitia ruat cælum, &co. — fortunavelut luna 18:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Fréteval you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Fréteval 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:FriyMan submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

For his 8 DYKs, 6 GAs, and many articles created and expanded, for the beer on my talk page, for countless reports to WP:UAA, for being humorous, for keeping civility, for just being an excellent person to look at and learn from, for his nearly 40,000 edits and 4 years of service, for work on deleting spam user pages, for work put into the milhist wikiproject, for constant support, for a constant will to discuss, and for a trillion other different reasons, I nominate Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for the Editor of the Week award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((User:UBX/EoTWBox))

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]