User talk:Isananni

Richard III article.
However most of your edits were tolerable- certainly we prefer Ross to Licence!!! Cheers, and happy editing here. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  19:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you insist on re-inserting that assumption, then I must advise you that I will probably insert WELL sourced material to suggest he spent hardly any time at Middleham at all as a youth. I'm not sure how that would tie in with your romanticisms!!! What Charles Ross, historian, is one thing; what Amy Licence, novelist, says, quite another.
 * Also, the article is in the middle of a serious- and major- overhaul in an attempt to reach GA status; it would be greatly appreciated if, instead of inserting new material at this curent juncture, you worked off the list (as given by the Reviewer on the article's TP) and helped improve the article first.
 * Please sign any statements you feel you must make with four tildes ( ~ ) to identify yourself.

Fortuna, I am identifying myself as much as you are, and I do not presume to be Imperatrix Mundi, nor to own any article on Wiki, while given your history of debates on your talk page you do have a tendency to be rude and overreact to other editors that speaks of yourself more than of the other editors.

Marriage alliances have little to do with romanticism: the Kingmaker was wed to Anne de Beauchamp as a child, Elizabeth of York was betrothed to George. Neville when she was about 5 and she was about 10 when she was included in the treaty of Picquigny as the would-be wife of the French Dauphin. I personally find Licence (and her editor) to be rather clumsy in her work, in her bio on Anne Neville she named Margaret Beaufort's 3rd (or 4th, according to views) husband alternatively Thomas and William as if husband and brother-in-law were interchangeable, but that does not mean all her work is plain rubbish and I personally found that pièce of information rather interesting both in the general context and in the specific context of a Royal family with very little exchange of DNA from outside contributors, which probably made Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville the more bizzarre to the eyes of his family.

Licence's speculation is not bad, nor is David Baldwin's speculation that 1465 marked the beginning of Richard's knighthood training with the Kingmaker, rather than the end as Kendall suggests. In this view, a marriage prospect to appeace the Earl and the possible development of a romantic attachment would make even more sense, regardless of how much time Richard actually spent at arm's reach from the prospected bride. However, I think both youths' feelings, if any, were irrelevant at this stage, as it's proven by Anne's later marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Should we maybe add Baldwin's arguments too? He seems to have derived them from newly discovered contemporary records, something that neither Ross nor Kendall were able to analyse just as they did not have access to the findings of his mortal remains and could only speculate on his looks and the hunchback myth, so it looks like Richard III is a work in progress in a much broader sense than a Wiki article.

I rarely edit on Wiki, when I do I try to add reasonable information from reliable sources and never look down on other editors. Hope we can share this work base.

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits
Hello, Isananni, and thanks for your contributions. Here are a couple of general editing suggestions for you to consider: Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric talk 13:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
 * Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.


 * Dear Eric, thank you very much for your suggestions on my talk page. I promise I will try and keep my work easier to follow up, I do apologise if I will not be up to your standards since I am not an advanced editor. Hope the final result of a more referenced article counts more than editing proficiency in the end.
 * Thanks for your help isananni
 * No apology necessary! It's not my standards, just a suggestion to help everyone who might be collaborating on or watching the article. If you look at the article's history, you'll see how it's much easier to assess at a glance what colleagues are up to if the edits are condensed and referenced.
 * Note that I took the liberty of formatting your above post a bit. Here's a helpful talk page guideline Help:Using_talk_pages. Regards,Eric talk 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Richard III of England. ''Do not call people haughty. You are damaging the article- again. '' Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am now reinstalling MY entries to the page, deleting your references and have reported your behavior to Wikimedia
 * Well done! Your entries will naturally be reverted as irrelevant. Could you please report me to Jimmy Wales, I suggest he will thank you for it! Now: YOU are being discussed on the talk page- feel free to join in. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You are beyond definition. Wiki staff, your Jimmy Wales or whoever, will decide on your behavior.

Deleting my messages will not look good for you. Can I remind you of 3RR. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard III (Again)
Isananni, I'm just a bit concerned by what I have read at the talk page of the article and again here on your own talk page. What you have done, unfortunately, is to remove scholarship from the article in favour of material that is misleading and/or inaccurate. You also seem to have something of an issue with this article and with its editors over a long period of time. Can I suggest you think carefully about whether you are starting to feel a sense of ownership on the article, and whether that is getting in the way of improving the article? I certainly don't want to put you off editing and on checking I'm aware of how much effort you have put into it, but you really need to be careful. You can't suggest primary sources trump scholarship - it's the job of Wikiquote to take those (have you thought of starting a page on there for RIII's reputation)? Moreover, I would caution you to think about reverting material that has been pointed out to be incomplete and therefore misleading. Walpole, of course, eventually rejected the pro-Ricardian line he had taken, and that has to be included if the article is to prevent the facts in a neutral manner. Moreover, presenting the views of one pro-Ricardian propagandist who has no training in history (and so far as I know does not speak either medieval English or Latin) as simple facts on the basis of a newspaper article is a very dubious thing to do (even if it were 'true', as you claim - in fact, there are people out there, admittedly ones I disagree with, who say that the Tudors simply told the truth about him and that is why it was so widely accepted, e.g. Hicks). The fact that they have been there for a long time doesn't give them dignity. I've had to work on some pretty grim phenomena in my time (Holocaust denial) and that's been around for fifty years - it's as false now as it was then, just the pedigree was a bit longer (not, mercifully, that even the Richard III society are as dishonest as Irving, Faurisson or Zundel). I very much hope we can sort this out to our mutual satisfaction, but for me to accept it, it will have to be done on the basis of scholarship, which is what I am trying to achieve. Best wishes.109.156.156.186 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, as you could have read in The Richard III's article talk page under the Reputation section, your entries had not been removed for good, nor Was the citation from the newspaper to be kept, I had simply asked the senior editors I have been working with for some time now to allow me time to replace the newspaper's citation with scholarly quotations from contemporary sources and remodule That section to avoid using the terms "Tudor propaganda" or "tarnish" yet keeping the basics That Richard's descriptions suffered a dramatic change after his death (where truth really lay only God knows) and reinserting your entries, including Walpole's rethinking. Since I have another work for a living I simply did not have time to do it yet. I will now revert your entries again and please allow me time to proceed as agreed with the senior editors that monitor the article. I do not own the article of course, but neither do you and the newspaper citation was not the only entry you removed, taking away information that other editors (not me in this case) had dedicated time to and had been approved of By senior editors who work with Wikipedia without hiding behind an ip, which does not exactly help establishing relationship and trust. Please bear with me some days more and you will not be disappointed. As for Richard III "again" I think Wikipedia is both a precious yet dangerous tool, so I only contribute in articles where I can bring information based on extensive reading and research, Richard III and his family being one of the few ones I venture in. Thanks for the additional information you brought. Isananni (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Isananni, sorry but that sums up the problem. I did not, contrary to your assertions, remove any material. What I did was add new. I think you need to go and look at the comparisons more carefully, where you will see that what happened was that I simply added more material where it was needed. Therefore, it certainly came across as though you were trying to block any meaningful discussion of the problems with this section and discourage any changes to it. That's not good practice, and it didn't feel like good manners. I will concede that since then you seem to have taken on board most of what I have said (and indeed done). I had read the talk page and what you proposed is entirely different from what has actually happened. It may be, of course, that you simply expressed yourself badly. On to some other points:
 * taking away information that other editors (not me in this case) had dedicated time to and had been approved of By senior editors who work with Wikipedia without hiding behind an ip, which does not exactly help establishing relationship and trust.
 * Much of what is on that page, according to its history, is written by you. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad (apart from anything else, this point aside it's mostly very good) I do say that does not give you the right to arbitrarily block or revert changes. Merely because people have dedicated 'time to it' does not guarantee quality, although it can lead to possessiveness. As for the 'senior editors' and 'anonymous IP' argument, this seems a strange example of the argument from authority. As it happens, I have been an active editor on WP for 10 years wherever I come across errors, although I seldom expend energy creating or rewriting whole articles. But I do so anonymously as my employer has Views on the subject of WP and indeed the internet engagement of academics and I therefore prefer to do good by stealth (and to change my IP regularly so it can't be traced). Like you, I also work for a living - 70-80 hours a week, usually - I don't edit often, and when I do I try to hide the topics I am editing on in case they lead people to guess my identity (there are very few out there with my precise research interests). I would also remind you that you are anonymous in the strict sense of the word - I have no idea who you are, or where you work, or even whether you are N or M. So why is an IP address more anonymous than a pseudonym? That goes for most on that page, apart perhaps from Paul Barlow (and of course, we have no proof that is his real name).
 * 'I had simply asked the senior editors I have been working with for some time'
 * But why? The few tweaks that were needed to my edits (yes, I agree there were some, because I may be a professional historian but I am also busy and had to edit it quickly and am perfectly capable of making mistakes like the rest of us) did not need the massive energy you expended on it by reverting, re-reverting etc. What worries me still is that you seem to have wanted them to be your edits, rather than mine. That's not in line with what WP is.
 * 'please allow me time to proceed as agreed with the senior editors that monitor the article.'
 * You have now done that, so this isn't strictly relevant. However, I see no sign of agreement on any part for you to have time to change things to your satisfaction, indeed quite the contrary. If I had, I would not have reverted. Moreover, it is not your place to judge what is or isn't acceptable or timely. Again, I think you need to consider your sense of ownership.
 * As for Richard III "again" I think Wikipedia is both a precious yet dangerous tool, so I only contribute in articles where I can bring information based on extensive reading and research,
 * Agreed, and so do I. That is definitely good practice, but neither of us have a God-given monopoly on accuracy, as you yourself note. It's therefore rather sad that your approach seems to have been initially antagonistic whereas, after a bit of a retreat on both parts (I left a couple of other thoughts back on the other talk page) the article is much improved.
 * Thanks for the additional information you brought.
 * Duly noted and gladly accepted. But please think carefully about what I have said here. I am not trying to put you off editing, only encouraging you to think about the way your actions and words come across.109.156.156.186 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read your other comment and I think I can now see why you thought you had permission to keep the old version until you could check for a new one, but I must admit that's not the way I interpreted it and I still think you need to guard against over-reacting or otherwise giving the impression of a clique. Anyway, it's all sorted now and I'm happy - I hope you are too. Have a nice evening.109.156.156.186 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a nice evening and a nice weekend too. I am a better person than I manage to portray myself after all... :) Isananni (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard III...
Isananni, can you take it easy with the multiple inserts on Richard III? I know you're responding on the talk page, but regardless of whether you've the strongest argument, you've readded the same material five times now, which could well be taken as edit warring. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Make that six. If the editor self-reverts I'll be rather impressed. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is edit warring which I did not start Hchc2009. Fortuna made a case for 3 words of specification and deliberately removed a whole sentence as a personal revenge. I can take the personal insults I have been subject to in the last days, I will not take deliberate detrimental actions on the article that are not moved other than by a personal stance. Can you believe I should be having a walk in the park with my children right now? Can you believe I'm weeping over the way this arrogant, mischievous person is dealing with the article and other editors in the most blatant impunity? Do you really think I would not let go if I did not feel this is pure deliberate injustice? And for what? to prove a point? I'm not so experienced with your templates, or reports, or referrals, but I know when one is wrong or right and if you really think I have the stronger argument Hchc2009, please say so on the article's talk page as all this is simply frustrating.Isananni (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As the fella says, "It's not personal Sonny, it's purely business" Without a page number, PMK cannot be a source. Do you understand? Really? That's all it is. A non-source that YOU keep bunging back in! PS- he doesn't think you've got the stronger argument- he was being polite. He left the same message on my TP :pFortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kendall and all other authors are mentioned as a source in a number of cases without the specific page. Specific pages are always required to be cited when a whole quotation is taken from the book, most times the specific page is not mentioned. Is a specific page with direct reference to Richard of York being betrothed to Cecily Neville the problem? We both know that is not the case, but if this is the case, I will give you the page whatever source I will have to useIsananni (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The page number is fundamental. See how many other references to books omit the detail? NONE. Please repeat this claim on the article TP :)   Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  12:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is partly true. The page number should always be given, but in practice it often isn't. I think this is a(nother) misunderstanding between the two of you that should now be laid to rest. Deb (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A misunderstanding that would have been avoided by following basic procedure. AGAIN!!! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is no misunderstanding and you all perfectly know it. Now you've made my day, get your digits off MY talk pageIsananni (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just undid that last comment of yours on the article Talk page, because I felt you would regret it. You need to take a step back, even if other people are not able to do so.  Be the bigger person and walk away from this dispute. Deb (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not regret a comma! I was made subject of public mockery, censored over publicly known documented facts while other edits go unscafed and all this for what?????? For a single editor's personal fun on an otherwise uneventful day???? Now leave me be and leave my talk page!Isananni (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Diplomacy is definitely NOT my prerogative, I truly do not deserve it and I would preferably leave irony out, if you do not mind. I have other qualities though Isananni (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tomb of Richard III in Leicester Cathedral.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Tomb of Richard III in Leicester Cathedral.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The best strategy seems here to ask to the photographer, Will Johnston, an OTRS authorisation to publish the picture on Wikimedia Commons. You'll find some templates for that here. Dereckson (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was given permission for use of the image for Wikipedia only by Keith Cousins, New Media Officer of Leicester Cathedral, who asked the image should report the following: Credit - Will Johnston / Leicester Cathedral, Copyright - Leicester Cathedral - which I did. I honestly do not understand what I should do, my fault actually, I am not an experienced editor and simply wanted to help. Would you like to send me a private email so that I can give you Keith Cousins' contact references and you may check my source? Isananni (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I forwarded the permission granted by Leicester Cathedral to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Isananni (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your initiative, this image would be welcome.
 * Wikimedia Commons don't allow restrictions "for Wikipedia only", to be sure anyone could reuse our content, text and images.
 * The ideal would be to contact again the cathedral or the photographer, explain them that we don't allow Wikipedia-only media, and ask them for a free license release. Commons:Commons:Email templates contain the kind of permissions they have to give, and how you can ask them that. --Dereckson (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem in getting back to the Cathedral again, but I will first wait for the answer from the Wikimedia staff who I forwarded the permission to. If it is all right with them, I do not see a reason to disturb anyone again. Furthermore, when filling the form for the image, it was perfectly possible to add the template that use by third parties other than Wikipedia may not be possible. I think the details given with the image and the permission that Wikimedia now has been forwarded are perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy, but as I said I will wait for their answer and keep you updated. Talk soon Isananni (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email, maybe you could answer me and I can give Keith Cousins' contacts so that you can help me fill whatever is needed by referring to the permission that had already been given and needs amending? I am really hopeless at templates etc and it would be such a shame to waste this opportunity of a licensed image of the new tomb for Richard III's article, thank you in advance for your help Isananni (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Leicester Cathedral's New Media Officer is now advised of the need of a free licence. Please give them time to provide it before removing the image, they have been most helpful with me and should not have problems extending the permission for free use. I am not sure I would have taken on this initiative if I had known it'd be such a headache though... Isananni (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anne Neville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VII. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not my edit, I simply moved a previous anonymous user's edit to the right parapraph in the article and pointed out that, even if the information is true, it needs citation Isananni (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Alexander Hamilton page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=763274843 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F763274843%7CAlexander Hamilton%5D%5D Ask for help])

False positive, the section has simply being restructured, no content lost. Isananni (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverts
Please stop. The category is blue now and probably was when you first reverted. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion on Aaron Burr's talk page, as you should have done before taking the liberty to invent a category and apply it to whomever you deemed suitable to your liking with no respect whatsoever either for the formerly living person you branded with your fanciful categories or the fellow wikipedians who worked on that page, cross-referencing countless academic works or original documents before entering a single line. No amount of emoticons or "peace and love" symbols can compensate for such arrogance.Isananni (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...? There was a pre-existing scheme for Activists by state. Are you saying that it's arrogant for me to say that he's from New Jersey...? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Maria Reynolds page
The template does not add protection to a page, it only shows that a page is protected. The protection for the page Maria Reynolds expired yesterday according to the logs, and so the template should not be on it. If you want to request another period of protection for the page, you can do that here. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Bonadea, thank you for your explanation, it is very comforting to have feedback from a human being after apparently inadvertedly warring with a machine that would obviously not engage in a constructive discussion on the article talk page. As you may have seen from the discussion I started on the Maria Reynolds talk page, since the Hamilton musical show all Hamilton related pages have been subject to repeated vandalism. Speaking of the Maria Reynolds page case in particular, you may see from the page history how frequently (even very recently) the page has been subject to inappropriate edits, with users trying to include lines from the songs of the musical show (e.g. Say No To This, The Reynolds Pamphlet etc.) as if they were a good source for the historical article which of course they are not, and these are the best cases, other cases include much more vulgar edits given the subject. My question now is: if the protection expired yesterday, how does one reinstate it or better yet how does one put this page as well as the Hamilton-Reynolds Scandal page under semi-protection (as is the case for other Hamilton related pages like Alexander Hamilton itself, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, Angelica Schuyler Church, Philip Hamilton, Aaron Burr, etc.) so that patrolling these sensitive pages does not become an everyday task but a once every week one? Thank you so much in advance for your help and reply. Please believe my good faith in what I have done so far.Isananni (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Isananni. I fully understand that your edits have been in good faith. I have only looked into the edit history pretty quickly right now, but it doesn't look like there has been much vandalism since the protection expired. Maybe other pages have been vandalised more frequently, and if so you can certainly request protection for them. The place to do that is this page, but you should be aware that the protection policy doesn't usually allow for pre-emptive protection, and I suspect that new protection for Maria Reynolds would not be placed unless there's regular and frequent disruption. Scattered vandal edits is something that every unprotected page n Wikipedia suffers from.... however, as a regular editor of the page, you are probably better placed than I am to judge the severity of any disruption to it. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I submitted the request for semiprotection for both the Hamilton-Reynolds scandal page and the Maria Reynolds page. If admins look at the history of the Maria Reynolds page, they will see that even with the previous protection the level of vandalism was definitely high, a lot higher than e.g. the page of Richard III that I used to patrol more often in the past when the discovery of his remains and following reburial drew the spotlight on what was a in itself a very divisive page that drew a lot of discussions. I hope admins will see the wisdom of reinstateìing/adding the protection to the Hamilton related pages, unfortunately fame like honey does not only attract good doers... thank you for your instructions and forgive me if my little familiarity with the Wikipedia procedures has made it necessary for you to intervene. Have a nice day Isananni (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Maria Reynolds. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  13:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Hi Fortuna, good to hear from you again. I did try to open a discussion on the article talk page, problem is that I had apparently engaged in an edit war with an automated process... no wonder I felt my observations were so uncivilly overlooked. Please see the article talk page as well as my discussion with Bonadea on my talk page, the section just above this one. I will appreciate your contribution, we may have had our differences in the past, but I know we are both history geeks who are only interested in good quality edits. (btw putting the Richard III page under semiprotection would not be a bad idea, even if vandalism has somewhat subsided since the discovery of the remains and following reburial). Please believe my good faith, as well as probably my naivety in the recent edits. Isananni (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah :) I thought I recognised the username. Yes: I thought it was odd to edit-war with a machine. A bit like the The Matrix perhaps. You are clearly The One. Incidentally- and I have to be very careful about our WP:OUTING rule here, of course- but there was a very interesting article in the latest Ricardian Bulletin ...I couldn't quite concur with all the conclusions the authur presented (no surprise there, perhaps?!) but it was nicely written and cogently argued. Take care! &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ;) Isananni (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Hamilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Pickering. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Error in referral link amended, thanks for pointing it out. Isananni (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Eliza Hamilton Holly
Please stop reverting until we've discussed this. <span style="color:#000;border-width:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF,2px 2px 1px #AAA;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's discuss. What is your edit based on? Isananni (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your evidence is that Eliza Hamilton Holly was named Elizabeth. I've looked at her baptismal record and marriage record. I've looked at a document that she filed in the New York courts, for her husband's probate estate – a document where her full legal name would be required, and it was "Eliza Hamilton Holly." There's also a photograph of her gravestone, which names her as Eliza. You'll find these sources as cited references in Eliza Hamilton Holly. What have you got that says she's Elizabeth? <span style="color:#000;border-width:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF,2px 2px 1px #AAA;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC), rev. 20:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources which clearly do not take this evidence in consideration. Please do revert my edits. Have a nice day.Isananni (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too! It's always a pleasure working with you – I was surprised to see us at odds, and I'm glad that the dispute was so brief. <span style="color:#000;border-width:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF,2px 2px 1px #AAA;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's a comfort to know someone in the world can discuss historical or really any issues civilly. I am losing sleep over a bitch with whose views I differed and who has now publicly attacked me twisting my words and withholding the reasons WHY my opinions differ. I cannot think of a disease that can be long lasting and painful enough for such scum. See you on the next historical page. Isananni (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your emailed vote of confidence, but I wouldn't want credit for Eliza Holly's page. It's a terrible article with very little substance, and I'm really just making repairs on the surface. It still is a pile of barely-notable factoids, probably thrown together by a kid in high school. The article on her sister Angelica started out in even worse shape, at least before you started to undertake some emergency repairs! <span style="color:#000;border-width:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF,2px 2px 1px #AAA;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, it's better than a page dedicated to a person talking about a building, which is what I remember the Elizabeth Hamilton Holly article to look like. Thank you for your appreciation. Isananni (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

E-mail
I got an alert that you'd e-mailed me, but I haven't received an e-mail. It could be that you're using the e-mail you used to contact me a year or two ago. It has changed since then, so use the Wikipedia e-mail link if you need to contact me. Deb (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did use the Wikipedia email. Isananni (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I eventually found it in my "Social" folder - I don't know how that happened. I think your problem has probably been resolved now? Deb (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a consensus has been reached that the term Accession used by the editors of the time for the related section on the Richard III page is the best middle ground given the opposing views of equally relevant scholars and hence best respects WP:NEUTRAL. Isananni (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard III of England
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard III of England 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 A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver -- A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard III of England
The article Richard III of England you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard III of England 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. Dysklyver 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I had a look at some of your comments and wanted to include some of your suggestions and/or answer why some terms were used instead of others (e.g. “buried without pomp” in the lead is the closest translation of the latin “sine ullo funere honore” in early 16th century Vergil’s History of Britany, which does not imply the greyfriars did not perform the customary rites, but that he was not buried with the honors git fir a king, or better with no honors at all since archeological evidence suggest he was laid in the ground hands still tied and without coffin). I’ll try to go through all your comments over the weekend and make good use of your suggestions). Thanks again for taking your time to review the article! Isananni (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard III
I have taken the initiative to nominate Richard III of England to DYK as it is eligible due to having been recently improved to GA status. See Template:Did you know nominations/Richard III of England for details. Dysklyver 15:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Is there anything I need to do? Isananni (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you can try to come up with a more interesting hook! I went with:
 * ... that Richard III was the last English king to be killed in battle, at Bosworth field in 1485?
 * But there are lots of interesting facts about him, so that’s not really the only option, its just the best I could come up with. Dysklyver  15:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or... that Richard and his wife Anne were crowned king and queen of England in the first joint coronation after 174 years? Something like that? Isananni (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that’s not bad, the full rules are here: Did you know/Hook. Its for the main page, so the most interesting thing/most current/most known (or unknown) things seem to be good. Dysklyver  16:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

For your contributions to Richard III of England
Thank you!!!!

Issues at Richard III GA
Hi, several editors have expressed concerns that Richard III has some minor issues and that more work is required to get it to GA standard. It would be advisable if you made specific comments on the GA review page regarding this. I expect that this will be dealt with quickly, but your input would be appreciated. Dysklyver 12:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am actually acting on some of your suggestions now, even if I had planned to do so tomorrow, and commenting on the review page accordingly. Some issues I understand (e.g. the reference to Higginbotham's blog, even if she can hardly be called "Ricardian" and her status as member, or at least former member of the RIII Society is definitely misleading), but they are not my edits and would need to track them down in the article and find alternative sources. The minor issues you pointed out I am trying to address. Some concerns about the supposed length of some sessions I find contradictory: on one hand one says the figure of RIII is polarizing, on the other hand one complains about the length of a session like "Reputation" which is undisputed in terms of WP:NEUTRAL and is perfectly referenced and is the product of a careful balance in presenting the different points of view on RIII. The same can be said of the Discovery of Remains section, which others may find hardly fit for what is probably the greatest multidisciplinary archeological find in this century so far, so much so that a separate article has been set up to cover it. I have worked on reorganizing entire sections of articles that had been nominated GA and presented far more serious problems in terms of accuracy and referencing, e.g. Alexander Hamilton's section on the Reynolds affair, and related articles. Anyway, all contributions are welcome if we can improve the article further without detriment to the information and neutrality policy. Isananni (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you could go through the article yourself and my review comments, and make any changes you think appropriate, then ping me once you are done. (or leave a message on my talk page). I will then review the article again from scratch, paying particular attention to the sources in the areas identified as controversial. Once any further issues have been dealt with I will run it past Ritchie333 and see what he thinks. I expect it will get (finally) passed again at that point. Hopefully this won't take too long. Dysklyver  12:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Reopening closed SPI case
I am pretty sure that the edits you made to a closed SPI case are counterproductive, and since you requested my help, I reverted them. Not following procedures can only harm the case you're trying to present. I'll try to help you with the correct procedure later today. <span style="color:#000;border-width:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF,2px 2px 1px #AAA;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for believing my edits were made in good faith. I really had no idea the case had been closed, but I did open a new one that might or might not be related, you might want to have a look at that one too. Thanks for your help. Isananni (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted your removal of content. I believe you did it in good faith, based on our past interactions, but it would look like vandalism to other editors. <span style="color:#000;border-width:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF,2px 2px 1px #AAA;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As you deem better. Isananni (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Your recent editing history at False accusation of rape shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''See, this is ACTUAL edit-warring. One more and you get your own WP:3RR/N report. '' Calton | Talk 10:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

why exactly are you not giving your free opinion on the article talk page instead of treating me like shit? Isananni (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

now what? You don’t have an opinion of your own to state on the article page yet you choose to object to other users’s edits and revert them without taking sides? How convenient. Isananni (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at False accusation of rape. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Calton lied, I did not thrice revert the same edit, I did not! Look at the history of both the article and the discussion thread in the talk page, as well as my reasons for the unblock request as stated on my talk page. This is vicious! You are heeding an editor who has deliberately misled you on my edits and has refused to engage in any constructive discussion on the article talk page as well as on mine and their talk page. So while I strive to give arguments for my edits, you simply choose the easy way to not even bother to look at what edits were made based on someone whose only interaction with me was based on threats! This is SO vicious and unjust Isananni (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I WAS trying to address the problem by filling out the proper DRN form when I was blocked! How am I supposed to go through the proper channels and defend myself if you censore me on the whole platform?!? Now what about and ? Do they simply get away with calling me names like stating my edits are nonsense (Roscelese), saying I am unreasonable (Roscelese), saying I should leave editing to others (Roscelese, I guess they were thinking of themselves as the only owners of the truth, possessiveness much?), threatening me without engaging in a civil conversation (Calton). Is that ok? Is making people feel like shit ok on this platform? Isananni (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I review the unblock requests that are in front of me. The two users you mention are not blocked. If you agree to an 0RR restriction on False accusation of rape, and/or any conditions  may have(if they are willing to see an unblock here), I would consider unblocking you so you can proceed with dispute resolution. You are also free to make a new appeal to a new administrator, but those are my conditions. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I promise I will not edit on either the False Accusation of Rape article or its related talk page over the next 31 hours, but I will, if given the chance, expose how viciously I have been treated, especially by Roscelese and Calton, by filling out the DNR form. Please advise if and when I may proceed. Isananni (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Blaming others for your own actions isn't a good way forward. Speaking of which:

Calton lied, I did not thrice revert the same edit, I did not!

Making false accusations -- like saying that I lied when I most demonstratedly did not -- counts as a personal attack, which is a blockable offense if so judged, so I'd be careful about flinging it about if I were you.

But in case you're just confused, let me refresh your memory regarding the warning template I posted above:


 * Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

The three reverts and their edit summaries:


 * 09:04, September 15, 2018 Undid revision 859631363: try using the talk page yourself before reverting edits on a page you have never contrubuted on I have given consensus to the edit request of other users)
 * 10:24, September 15, 2018‎ Undid revision 859643394: yes I do know, so far it’s 2 to 1 in favor of my perfectly neutral rephrasing
 * 12:57, September 15, 2018‎ Common wiki practice is NOT to go into numerical details in the lead as stated on the talk page. Please revert only when YOU have consensus to the contrary. (in response to Undid revision 859651988 by Isananni (talk) "Please try to establish a consensus on talk before continuing to make these changes..."

Three reverts in 4 hours. Simple statement of fact. --Calton | Talk 15:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is three reverts, not more than three. But as I said, 3RR is a bright line, but one can still be edit warring with fewer reverts, or reverts of different things. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That is three reverts, not more than three.
 * I've never said otherwise. Nor am I the one who blocked Isananni. --Calton | Talk 22:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I did NOT thrice revert the SAME edit! THAT is a fact and you keep misrepresenting my edit history! I twice reverted an edit where I took another user's imo right concern that the lead was biased by including both the lowest AND the highest rates as reported in the article and THEN made a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT edit where I took editor Martinevans123's suggestion on the talk page, where YOU invited me to seek consensus, that all numerical details had better be left out of the lead as is common wiki practice. Now, I had NOT edited the same thing, I HAD edited based on another editor's prompting on the talk page, the edit was as neutral as it could be and you still disregarded all ongoing discussion and had me blocked without even once engaging on the subject matter on the article talk page! I find THAT a personal attack and an uncivil way to deal with anyone, let alone fellow editors whose good faith is to be assumed, especially after over 1300 edits, one GA and almost 5 years editing as in my case. Isananni (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your replies here make me less inclined to unblock you, as it suggests how you will behave in any dispute resolution. This page should not be turned into the forum to resolve your differences. Issananni, as I said, you don't have to revert the same edit to be considered to be edit warring.  331dot (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * How exactly do you suggest I behave? Should I disregard the direct insults I have been subject to? Should I say that calling people nonsensical, unreasonable, suggesting they leave editing to others, threatening them with blocks without even once engaging in a discussion on the subject matter is just fine and this made my editing on Wikipedia an enjoyable experience? Because as far as I recall these behaviors were not exactly in the guidelines and that is what I would have pointed out (aside from of course "harping", as Roscelese said to me, on the need for a more neutral text in the lead), but I may have misread. And now I can't even civilly stand my point on my talk page after my editing history is being misrepresented, again? That's definitely taking it a bit too far, do not bother about the block. Enjoy your we, you've wasted mine Isananni (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All-caps words and exclamation points are not usually the signs of a civil discussion. Yes, you should disregard insults by others instead of getting into the gutter with them. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Too bad I was taught that insults need to be reported because a no-deterrent policy will not make the world a better place and you know what, DRN forms are there for a reason. And all-capsing a few words to emphasize the correct order of my editing history in the face of blatant repeated misrepresentation is way different than calling people names. Now please leave my talk page, your job here is over and I honestly do not wish to hear from you anymore. Isananni (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am only posting to acknowledge your request for me to not post here anymore. There is a difference between reporting insults and fighting fire with fire. I'm sorry this could not be resolved amicably. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No you're not. Your best acknowledgement of my request that you quit posting on my talk page would have been quite simply to quit posting on my talk page, how difficult is that? Please keep your opinion on the best way to deal with offensive behavior to yourself and find someone else to torment, haven't you done enough already? Now leave me alone. Isananni (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll just point out that 3RR does not mean more than 3 reverts of the same material, it means more than 3 reverts on the same article. And you made four.  To quote " 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period".
 * Revert 1: 07:33 undoing Roscelese
 * Revert 2: 09:04 undoing Calton
 * Revert 3: 10:24 undoing Calton
 * Revert 4: 12:57 undoing Peter The Fourth


 * Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * now that you’ve said your piece after blocking me for 31 hours, please consider leaving me in peace for the weekend and getting your digits off my talk page indefinitely.

Isananni (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I did NOT thrice revert the SAME edit!
 * You know, I even highlighted the relevant portion of the warning. Let's try again:


 * Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ON A SINGLE PAGE within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, WHETHER INVOLVING THE SAME OR DIFFERENT MATERIAL EACH TIME—counts as a revert.


 * You made the three reverts I said you made: this is an objective fact. You said I was lying about stating this objective fact, even after I documented it. If you have this much trouble with simple arithmetic, documentation, and fact-free assumptions of bad faith, I can't see why anyone should accept your version of math on False accusation of rape. --Calton | Talk 22:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , the editor has been blocked. I would strongly suggest that you should limit your discussions with this editor to the respective article's talk page than come here to post. Thanks, Lourdes  02:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I would advise you to butt out, since 1) this is about falsehoods the editor has written about me, not the article; 2) it's none of your business. --Calton | Talk 03:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And 3) he pinged ME. --Calton | Talk 03:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Let’s try this again: will you all just sod off my talk page? Thanks. Isananni (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's try this again: will you apologize for your repeated falsehoods about me?


 * Oh, and the stat you were edit-warring to put in? Bogus. --Calton | Talk 05:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Calton, I did not thrice revert the same edit, my edits followed the discussion on the talk page where you never engaged in a conversation before reverting my edits despite my explicit invitation to do so, out of respect for the scholars whose studies I partially and correctly reported I should like to warn you against adding further insults against the figures I alternatively added/removed from an appallingly biased lead, and while you may be more competent from a technical point of view and did “just” apply the statutory 3RR (that I did not understand the way it is stated) without exceptions or further threats (warning is a clear understatement of the way you have been interacting with me from the start) that does not make you less of a despicable spiteful person in my eyes. Now go find someone else to pester or enjoy your weekend with the hand of your choosing but don’t use it to write on my talk page. This incident has already been discussed ad nauseam and I have a right to being left alone. One more digit on my talk page and the moment I am unblocked I will report you for harassment. Isananni (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
You signal here that you will edit war against community consensus. That is an unwise approach to editing.

Your recent editing history at False accusation of rape shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I will not revert your second edit (so YOU are one revert away from edit warring, NOT me), but I definitely hope other editors will step in in the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Journal_of_Forensic_Psychology. Isananni (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You really should rethink your approach to the editing community. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My mother used to say "if you have nothing nice to say, silence is the better option." Isananni (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a wise saying. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed Isananni (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing in a community
Either you understand the policies and guidelines and follow them when you edit and comment, or you don't. If you continue to edit in ways that are counter to the policies and guidelines, your editing privileges will end up restricted or removed. If you continue to abuse talk pages with snark, as you did here, you will continue to discredit yourself and such diffs will become evidence to have your editing privileges removed or restricted. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * “Yes, I know you don’t understand, etc.” That’s offensive, you have been aggressive and treating me like an idiot the whole day, amending your editing history as you did here did not prevent the insult from reaching your target, me, and instead of apologising you are now resorting to threats. As far as I am aware making one’s editing a miserable experience, failing to assume good faith, bullying less experienced editors let alone insulting them goes against Wiki policy. Please refrain from ever editing on my talk page again. Ever again. Isananni (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From the headline template in each and every talk page on Wikipedia:


 * Be polite and welcoming to new users
 * Assume good faith
 * Avoid personal attacks

Isananni (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

GA reassessment
Richard III of England, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —— SerialNumber  54129  17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)