User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 9

A barnstar for you!

 * and welcome: we have an article on Lubumbashi, which has plenty of red links in it- that basically means that we haven't got an article on it yet, but somebody thinks we should! So you can click on thse red links, and that will start you off. Then, just submit your new article: see here for a guide. However: I note your username may not meet our guidelines for names. It suggests you may represent a company or that you are sharing your account- booth are against our guidelines I'm afraid. And, combined with the fact that your sole- although worthy- edits so far are about a local DJ (and inserted into a big article here too), suggests that in fact you are solely here to advertise] this particular individual. As such, I should advise you that if you are in any way receiving payment for this promotion (whether in cash or goods, or as an agent or representative of the subject), then [[WP:UPE|undisclosing this relationship this is very much also against wikipedia's Terms of Use. So, as I say, concentrate on creating National Museum of Lubumbashi, perhaps :) happy editing!  &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  14:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

4dbrown
Hey would you please consider removing or changing the notice here, since you changed your mind and just fixed it? Don't want to confuse them... Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course- as I should've done at the time, and totally forgot. Thanks for the poke! -and thanks too for helping out on that page- Cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  17:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks for bringing it to COIN. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1
You are invited to join the discussion at Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 18:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (page stalker) - I requested an assessment at WP:MILHIST, so that may speed things up. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

RFA
I was thinking of nominating you for adminship. do you accept?--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, I do not.
 * But thank you very much for the kind offer, and for the vote- or should I say !vote :) -of confidence. I should thank you, too, for giving my WP:TPS out there the biggest chuckle they've had in a long time on this page ;) thanks again! &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  15:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * no problem :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (page stalker) Isn't FIM already an admin, ? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't FIM already a crat, check user and steward? Timothy Joseph Wood  14:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't TJW already a founder? There can only be one, but Jimbo very properly relinquished the founder flag to Bishzilla in 2013, and she has become quite blasé about it. As far as I've seen she uses it to polish her nails claws nowadays, so I reckon somebody else might as well have it tomorrow, while there's still anything left of it. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Well, she is now one of the ladies who lunch I imagine...? -And you could have a userbox saying "The first admin blocked by TJW" ;) for continuity purposes only of course &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  16:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Wales autoconfirmed yet? Good thing this is the encyclopedia that anyone can destroy edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't TJW already a founder? Of course not. You obviously missed my userbox. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry
Guess it was a waste of time after all. Thank you - really - for giving it a try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk; nnr. Cheers! &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  15:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Ha! - "Am I a clown? Do I amuse you?!" ;) &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A clown? Oh heavens no. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC) El Payaso y los Micos - Museu d'Autòmats del Tibidabo.JPG
 * The nutter from It, maybe!!! -CSD tagging spammers in their sleep :) &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Gerda!! I will treasure this always. I do hope you are well. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  08:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing yellows everywhere....
Hi Fortuna, have you noticed any recent change highlighting all I.P. edits in your watchlist in yellow?(I doubt whether it arises due to changes to any of my installed scripts etc.) Winged Blades Godric 13:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo Blades, only four- the usual kind of thing- on British empire, Gender dusphoria, history of Iran, Amritsar, etc. Not that they are always vandalism I have to say- in fact, of those four, only the first one was obvious. The yellowy highlighting of possible disruptivetext has been on watchlists for some time now (I think)- but do you mean it's got worse?
 * Also- while you're here- on the Rwandan Govt Exiled AfD, did you mean that other versions of it have alreday been deleted? &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  14:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD Opinions
Hi there! Could I possibly get your opinions on some MfD nominations? If so, here are a couple: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:HD-BNC connector, and/or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CNU? If not that's fine.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Recent Events
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Recent Events. I hope it is not hard for you to provide some input into the discussion. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 13:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I doing this right?
Timothy Joseph Wood 17:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! Nice to see you again, My Lord of Wellingtons ;) very well done! You've got the proportions just right- the bollocks are in the majority! &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

email?
I had an alert that you had sent me an email, but nothing's arrived in my inbox, presumably a vagary of wikimail... Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * H'mmm How bout: User:Factsnursing/sandbox?  &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  04:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * yes deleted. I'd like to block, but the user name isn't really loaded enough Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks- it had been suggested otherwise, that's all. Cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "it had been suggested otherwise" are you referring to a block there? I'm not sure about that; if it had been "Bestnursing" or something with "test" in I would have blocked. Also, the editor has a string of apparently innocuous minor edits, not just this, so for once I think I have to AGF Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not the block- everything's OK! Thanks for popping back though. &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  15:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about your vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978)
Hi there! Just had a (minor) question regarding your delete vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978). What did you mean by MfD being the "copper-fastened route"? That it is better/safer to do it that way or?

Thanks for your time & input!

TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No reflection on your choice of venue at all- merely the fact that in most cases (except copvio, blpvio etc- obviously bad stuff)- a speedy can be WP:REFUNDed- whereas XfD involves a community discussion, which is then less likley to be overturned. Note, fr'instance, how G4 applies only to pages deleted that way- not speedy. Although, perhaps, slightly more work to initiate, the rsult is- in my words- amost 'copperfastened.' Hope I've explained that OK- I'm sure it could've been said shorter :) &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  19:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't take it as an insult or anything and you did answer my question. I figured that you meant something along those lines but just wanted clarification, both for curiosity's sake and also as a tip to help me improve as a Wikipedia Editor (I think we are called Wikipedians?). Thanks again! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD Opinion #2
Hi there! I was just wondering if I could get your opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Soorebia? If not that's fine.

Thanks for your time!

TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass messaging
I too have vaguely uneasy feelings about mass messaging. I think it was User:Technical 13's use of MM in connection with Wikipediholism nearly 2 years ago that led to it sticking in my mind. There were objections to MM being used for humour rather than serious wiki-work, which then escalated into full tantrums, sockpuppetry, arbitration, and quitting the wiki just ahead of a block. It was a crying shame because T13 was a great developer of templates, and developed many of the tools still in use. Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey,, thanks very much for the info. I saw a more recent discussion in which tempers (might have) got a little frayed, so I suppose that shows how long memories some editors have! Yeah I saw that about T13 a while back- I went to his page to ask a question about ?something, and it was rather a nasty surprise. as you say, pretty tragic. &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  12:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham
Hiya, just checking you haven't forgotten about that. Do you need anything? (Also, awww, doggies!) HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo, I'll get to it now: some of AuntieRuth's suggestions are- slightly opaque? &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  13:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if you addressed what you could then asked Ruth to clarify, she'd be obliging. Think of A-class more like peer review than FAC. Most of the veterans use it as FAC preparation because the aim is to work together to make sure the article is up to scratch, so reviewers are happy to help you along. I'll go over it myself at some point, but I usually wait until other reviewers' comments have been addressed so that I'm reviewing the most up-to-date version. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  14:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, User:HJ Mitchell, I will definitely do so. Ploughing through it atm. Stella and Eddie say hello :) 🐕 🐾 🐶 &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  14:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading too fast
Thanks for that revert; I'd never run into Paul on-wiki and was in automatic mode -- talk page, click the + symbol, paste, save. I hope I spot anything similar in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem- I hope I didn't impinge your motive- see, I intended to remove both messages at once but only opened the section not the whole page, so when I mentioned 'tasteless,' I was refering to the message before yours- wishing hims happy christmas of all things! Yours I assumed to be automated mas-message or something, in which case you couldn't have know. Thanks for the message though- and, ending on a happier note, have a good weekend! &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna  16:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Aurobindo Mission School
Could I please get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Aurobindo Mission School? Thank you for your time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrew MfD nomination and nominated for G11 instead. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Syntactic noise
Hi again Fortuna! I was just wondering if I could get your opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Syntactic noise. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion closed. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, :)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna  07:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Message
Hi there,

It has been suggested I ask you direct why you have gone onto the Georgina Downs page (that is me) and removed a large portion of text saying it is unsourced when it is sourced in the references at the bottom, and in relation to the acute health effects that you removed it is in the Independent article word for word!!

It is of great concern to me to learn that it is not possible to know who anyone making changes to someone's page is and whether they have a conflict of interest (ie. farming or pesticides industry etc.)

Not suggesting at all you have those COIs but please I would be most grateful for someone to let me know how Wikipedia editors COIs are disclosed as I am really not sure where such information is found.

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message. I do hope you are well. I replied to (some of) your points on the article talk page, which is probably where it should stay- but, regarding identities, we take personal privacy very seriously, unless- like you- we choose to reveal our identities. I don't think- for example- that works for the chemical industry. I happen to know, in fact, that he is a part-time morris dancer currently working on an ostrich farm near Milton Keynes- although of course, that's not important right now. Take care!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna  16:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Martin is only one of the editors, so no idea about any COI of any others in relation to the page about myself and my campaign. I notice you didn't mention about yourself? I do think it is important that if people are changing important pages that are available publicly on the internet then they should really be public facing not shielding themselves away. Thefactcorrecter (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think,, you should read our guide regarding casting aspersions and then withdraw that poorly-worded suggestion. In any case, all your further discussions on this topic should be on the article talk page, rather than here. Many thanks. &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna  17:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I may not have worded it perfectly in the previous message and so apologies for that, but my fundamental point is this - it seems ANYONE at all from anywhere around the world can go onto Wikipedia as an editor and alter things on a page. My question is how can anyone know who anyone is and any related COI involved in that person altering things? Is there any links on Wikipedia related to that side of it? Will go back to the talk page but just wanted to reply to your message to me here. Thefactcorrecter (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems then, OK. As for the COI, well: 'On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog' eh! It's a somewhat inherent ?danger in having an 'Encyclopaedia anyone can edit'- and it's not automatically a problem, as long as the edits adhere firmly to our (fundamental) 'neutral point-of-view' policy, and other policies, guidelines I mentioned (sourcing, etc). Whiiich is more or less what that other page is all about, in a nutshell. or case, you might say! &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna  17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sweat (play)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bonville–Courtenay feud
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your name mentioned at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. We hope (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but what the actual fuck is going on? I think we just answered the question as to whether we would rather lose one of our best admins rather than do a damned thing about one of our recently worst. Doesn't really have anything to do with you personally, I just... needed to post that somewhere. What the fuck... Timothy Joseph Wood  14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're spot on mate. "We're through the looking glass, people" or whatever it was. I feel a bit sorry for Amortias because, whatever they originally thought (probably something along the lines of 'oh, this is what I'm meant to do', because they've seen it happen before), whatever they thought they could handle, this has just dumped so much shit it's like a fly-past by Nellie the Elephant :) But ... now that's the real tragedy. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think GR's RfA just tilted the whole project, or at least the top end of it. The absolute horse shit that's been happening at the current RfA is just crazy, and now we have folks at ANI openly threatening blocks for "questioning their judgement". Maybe Amortias wasn't keenly aware of the history and how messy the thing would be, but it's not the block itself, but the post facto justifications for the differences in behavior and results. I don't know whether to go with the painfully obvious or the somewhat less obvious Orwell reference. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The good editors getting taken to the glue-factory...? or, four admins good, two editors bad? Yes you're right that the aftermath has been fireworks- these are interesting times. You know, it would be WP:OR to see it as microcosmic to the big wide world, but- know what I mean? Not that it's 'like' Trump or anything, I just mean, people being even more volatile as a default response to everything. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Whew. Ok. I'm over it. I just needed some good comic relief, like someone so self absorbed that they called themselves an Ultrapreneur in their own promotional and obviously autobiographical Wikipedia article. Thank god we've still got things like that. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliant :) 'Ultrapr'- something else beginning with a 'p'?   &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination
I was thinking of nominating for adminship, and i am looking for one or two co-nominators. Are you interested? --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you could do far better than me,, although thanks for the compliment :) I note that User:J947 expresed a willingness to noinate (although a greater-tenured editor might be preferable); perhaps could opine, as he is a seasoned nominator.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Having a longer-tenured editor than you or me would certainly be preferable.  J 947 (c)  17:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now,, I do wonder what you precisely mean by that. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned about a few recent AfDs, so I was planning to wait until July before considering a nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer man, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm ready just yet to have another RfA. The points brought up by on his talk page were great and I'd like to cover those before throwing my name into the ring, especially after how 's recent RfA flipped on its head after a couple of days. Cheers,   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't envy the person tied to the stake, but it would be extremely interesting to see if a co-nom by a hand full of non-admins could actually get a body through the thing. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly used to- how easily I can't remember- but at some point- last year?- it seemed to devolve into an admin duty of sorts. Or maybe I'm talking rubbish :) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre interlude
Unfortuna Matrix Mandag I can write what I will as long as Wikipedia is operating in the US with it's 1st amendment. Unless I do illegal speech, illegal speech will be taken down by the internet police, including hate speech, offensive language or inappropriate things, for which is determined under the current law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.188.2 (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @WP:TPWs, this is re. - although god knows why. &mdash;  O Fortuna   you are always waxing, and waning;  11:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't slaunter the name with blasphemy or I will report you for hate speech and illegal speech Fortuna Impematrix mundi. The name is "Jahve" not G-d you racist anti semitic blashpemic interventionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.188.2 (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked for WP:PA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortuna, MelanieN's block is for 36 hours. If there is a recurrence when the block expires, the next one will be much longer. You don't have to keep the attack on your page, just delete it of you wish. Let mes know if know if you want those edits hidden in the history too Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much to you both, your help's appreciated. That's right too- as per DENY, I shouldn't leave that here, I'll archive it, as it could offend other tpws although I think mine are a pretty hardy breed eh ;) Happy holiday to all! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have called the case to User:Black Kite's attention, as he was involved in two previous blocks of a similar IP range, and expressed a willingness to consider a range block if it continued. Maybe you should simply hat this thread instead of deleting it, so that Black Kite can see it if he wants to follow up. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's informative- will do. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite rangeblocked for a month. He says, let him know if you see this same user with an IP outside this range. Now you can go ahead and archive or nuke this thread, as you wish. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, Thanks, if it's ok as per DENY, I'll archive, so I can come back to it; otherwise I'll never remember... &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought of this, but, didn't realize that links wouldn't work in hatting. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Classic :D a lyrical genius! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi Fortuna, just following up on User:Rakesh Kumar Jha Sukhsena which I nominated for speedy deletion and you said is already an article (A. P. J. Abdul Kalam) - the two are not the same, it appears that the editor has copied the article to their user page and then edited it to insert information about themselves, including linking to their own blog, which is why I nominated it. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I couldn't get Earwig running earlier, but now it says that the page is 95% copyio, so that sounds like a reasonable tag :) cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Incident vs language
I'll try to avoid further posting on Silver's page, having just done so (and saying that I'll stop for now). But I just wanted to say that I agree that was spectacular. Thanks, —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ...while this was excellent, . Thanks! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Beech Holdings
It's back! (to close to what was deleted). However, the editor has removed the most blatant of the promo language to more neutral phrasing. It's still not neutral, nor does it appear to be notable, but that's what AfC is for so I'm inclined to leave it alone for now. Your opinion is always welcome. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Its funny though, because if this is almost what was deleted, then what it was like was far worse when I tagged it-! I think. Mind you, I'm confused about that other one- that was a dupicate of this but presumably isn't now. In fact, my head's spinning; although not at rpms ;)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He copied from another draft about a company founder, then replaced it with the deleted copy, minus the most obviously promotional phrases I specifically pointed out, and he actually made a couple of other changes that make it more NPOV. But, yeah, it's enough to give someone allergies....  cough is getting better   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Request
We have met a few times, most of the time you don't seem to share my views, and that is precisely why I want to request something from you. There is a discussion on Talk:Jews where I think User:Jytdog is being too belligerent. He got all hot about a content issue, opened an Rfc, told me not to post on his talkpage any more, and is making unreasonable procedural demands in that discussion. I think it might help if somebody else told him that he should tone it down, take a break, chill, etc. Would you mind to look into this, please. I have worked with this editor in the past, and frankly have no idea why he is all worked up about this. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Debresser this is kind of surprising. First you misrepresent and say there is consensus that unsourced, disputed-for-a-year content should stay in the article, and now you are breezily spinning a line that I am the problematic actor. Since when is BURDEN "unreasonable"?  Please stop wasting everyone's time with dramah and either provide the sources to support the content or agree that it comes out of the article. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is did not misrepresent, but that is not the issue. The issue is that yes, you are too belligerent and unreasonable in your posts on this matter. I wanted an uninvolved editor, who can not be accused of having a prejudice in my favor, to have a look at your edits and perhaps write you an outside opinion. That is good practice for diffusing tensions, quite the opposite of drama. By the way, I am surprised this post came to your attention. It was definitely not supposed to. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You pinged me for pete's sake, and the fact that you intended not to makes the behavior worse, not better. I thought you knew what you were doing in WP but it is become apparent that my assumption is incorrect. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not @ "ping" you. The fact that Wikipedia nowadays makes a link to your page turn up as a ping is not a feature I am particularly fond of. Again you go down the path of personal attack... Debresser (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but any talk page stalker can see that you pinged him. That's not an argument you are going to win. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Was I trying to? Why is everybody out to prove somebody right, or wrong, winning or losing? What is with Wikipeida these days? Debresser (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

----Well, I apparently believe all this needless warring would go for a toss, if you straight-away disclose the sources at the talk rather than clutching onto them. And who knows- may be compelled by to revise his stance.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 04:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an option. And I probably would have, if not that Jytdog makes demands he is not entitled to make. It is the attitude that I posted about here. By the way, I rather like the idea of adding the source(s) after the unprotection. I mean, why not? Definitely not against any rules. If anybody will want to challenge them, which I doubt, they can do so afterwards. Debresser (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. Read WP:BURDEN.  Read it.  It is policy. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am well familiar with it, and nowhere does that policy say that sources must be provided on the talkpage for the approval of Jytdog before they are added to the article. :) You'd do well to be less condescending. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct. You have violated what it does say.  I am not responding here further, as this is more unproductive dramah. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * x2!!! Hi both, just to quickly apologise for not saying much so far- I'm only on the mobile atm, which isn't very convenient, and won't be at the PC for a few hours yet (UTC+1). I will say, though, that of course I'm happy to have a look at your ongoing discussion- although if it's in the role of WP:3O, then that should come before an RfC,  not after. I mean, this could be rather more complex than third opinion allows for. Chat soon!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  04:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again This is becomng quite urgent. The page was unprotected (I almost said: Jews are now unprotected), and I added a modified statement with sources, and also made an unrelated edit. Jytdog, being the hothead that he is, unfortunately, reverted everything, with the edit summary "garbage sourcing. No. I expect El C to take action now." At the same time, he strangely did not mention his claimed problems with the sources on my notification on the talkpage. The only thing he did post was a blatantly incorrect and rude claim as though I had not made any proposals, to which I later replied with a diff proving him wrong. It seems to me that Jytdog's issues are WP:LIKE, WP:OWN and perhaps even WP:IDONTLIKEUSERDEBRESSER. In any case, his behavior is far from collegial community editing. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took my off the ball on this one- am going to comment there now. I see has reprotected the page; I do think that we need to get this sorted ASAP, as he has been very generous, I think, with merely protecting, and we should take advantage of it while it lasts! Right.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail
--MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I won't be able to access email for a few hours yet- currently on a mobile device which seems to be becoming more medieval by the day :) I'll get back to you asap though. Hope you're well!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  04:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Take your time. We all have time zone issues anyhow. It can easily take 24 hours just to say "hello" and "hello". --MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try sprucing in your sandbox
Those two pictures are blocking text on both sides of the page. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but I love the coffee mug! --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see. Also I can't scroll. Maybe the fact that this page is 294,869 bytes has something to do with it. Are you competing with EEng? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yow who could ever compete with ?!  or would want to! :p  I have reduxed slightly though. Better for your eyes and scrolls?  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ve the coffee mug? Is that a new coffee fanatic thing? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I know what you meant - the superimposed mug actually blocked the first part of my sentence. But that point is kind of lost now that Fortuna removed the mug. But all is not lost: maybe we should invent a new word, "ve". Nominations are open as to what it might mean. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to have attracted unnecessary and unhealthy attention. It took so b****y long to do though :( But it's true that you have to open the edit panel to actually see what has been written. A mild inconvenience, certainly. Sorry about that folks. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Gerda!! I will treasure this always. I do hope you are well. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  08:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That's French!
"Soixante-neuf." Ha! I loved that. :') sixty nine   • speak up •  21:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reminded me of this. Merci! :) Have a goood Friday  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm TheSandDoctor. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Prabhatsingji, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo,  I think I'll ask you here actually  ;) so, you unreviewed the page, eh?  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that it posted that and I unreviewed it as it was nominated for deletion. It being reviewed means that it can be seen by search engines (as far as I understand) and if it is up for deletion, isn't that something that we don't want? If I am incorrect in that I apologize. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's OK Doctor :) What has happened is that, when I nominated it for deletetion, Twinkle tagged the page, and that automatically marked it as reviewed. It does the same if you CSD a page from the NPR panel IIRC. Have a good Friday! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When I come across pages nominated for deletion that have been reviewed I typically unreview them for that reason (what I said above). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Sounds like extra work :) but carry on. Fair play on Stiffing It To Spamdexxers, certainly. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When a CSD tag is on a page it gets the  added to it automatically. From what I can remember, it's actually better to mark everything you tag for deletion as reviewed so that other users don't need to look at the page too (as presumably you've already reviewed it if you've deemed it deletable).   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know, I will leave them marked as reviewed when nominating for deletion (or seeing ones marked for deletion) from now on. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
Good afternoon, Fortuna. Just to clarify, was Coffee warned about his actions before his personal attacks were brought to ANI? Thank you. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 08:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Morning, :) Well, that all seems like a lifetime ago now. But yes, Amortias left this on his talk; it was about half-hour? before the admin board was filed. Have a goodweekend, what's left of it.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Another question: what was the name of the editor who received a 3 month block for personally attacking someone? I believe he was mentioned on an ANI thread you participated in. Thanks. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 16:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't going in the Admin Newsletter is it? The other editor was User:Cassianto, who I am sure will give you an interview if you ask nicely ;)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Fortuna. I would have liked to propose the limits for NPA blocks, because they drive people off. As stated in the policy itself, "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment." I believe, that a 3 month block is too much for a preventive block. Would you agree? Cheers, Friy Man  talk 16:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, a proposal like that does you credit- it's the ultimate in good faith! Clearly, in that case, I did think it excessive. But, and I think most involved parties would agree, it arose out of a very particular (and therefore uncommon) set of circumstances- it was, in fact, a somewhat out of the ordinary affair, at the time. More generally though,, and to answer your actual question, it's worth remembering that a block doesn't automatically become 'punitive' just because the behaviour has ceased (after all, ofen it will have been the block itself which has achieved that!); rather, it could be preventing re-occurance. And in certain (admittedly quite extreme) circumstances, if the personal attacks are seen as likely to be interminable, and enough editors' time and patience has already been devoted to them, then I could see a NPA indef being very likely. And indefinite, as we are repeatedly reminded, does not mean inffinite, so it could be lifted the moment reassurances are given and accepted. If I could consider one problem your proposed proposal might encounter, it's that the community will probably resist anything that ties its hands, or restricts potential courses of action. What I mean is, is that, in a very small minority of cases, your proposal would stop the community from 'bettering the encyclopaedia'- in their eyes, anyway!
 * Even so, go for it. It will be interesting to see what is said, and your motives are undoubtedly good- that'll go a long way. And, thinking about it, I'm not sure I can remember the last time I saw an indefinite block solely on account of personal attacks; but I don't follow ANI closely, so it could be more common than I think, perhaps. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many NPA blocks don't reach ANI. They're levied against new editors who are reported to AIV. I have no qualms about indeffing a editor showing up spewing racist and sexist epithets. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree; I wasn't thinking of that kind of thing, but, of course, it's the most obvious form. I was considering- in the context of FriyMan's question- a situation involving personal insults between seasoned editors, rather than your run-off-the mill AIV vandals/arseholes such as you describe. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocks have long been used as a punitive measure rather than a preventative one. In the case of Coffee it was used, in my opinion, as a strong message that administrators are not above anyone else and any PAs dished out by them will not be tolerated. I only wish this was consistent across the board as there seem to be many other admins who flout the rules and manage get away with it. Which leads me nicely onto . Having acknowledged his cock up, he stated that he would be apologising to me for his block.  Did he?  No.  He didn't. That's not the kind of behaviour that is consistent with the bullshit peddled during his RfA.    Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , how about if I make a proposal like this: "All of the NPA blocks should be no longer than 1 week, besides blocks that fall under WP:NOTHERE"? By the way, 1 week is just an example and might chage. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 16:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that NOTHERE is a controversial block reason among some editors. Also, how do you deal with repeat offenders? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * blocking after ten and a half hours have passed is also controversial to some editors. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeaaaaahh.... which is why I offered AN is it's second seriously iffy block in the last five weeks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FriyMan, in the case you were asking about, the 3 month block was determined to be excessive at ANI and was overturned after 2 days. And the other party, the administrator, was blocked for a week, later reduced to 48 hours. With that said, I don't think you will find agreement for any kind of limitation on the length of blocks for personal attacks. Each case is unique and blocking admins need to have their options open; for example, someone with a lengthy block log for PA and a pattern of continuing PAs after blocks expire will certainly get blocks of increasing length, and could eventually be indeffed. Admins are expected to use their judgment on the length of a block, based on their experience, and of course subject to review in case they violate community norms. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, you convinced me. Let's try it this way: "The first personal attack block should be not longer than 1 week with succeeding blocks being increasingly lengthy. This applies, unless a user is clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia." What do you think of that? Cheers, Friy Man  talk 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Two issues. 1) "The first personal attack block should be not longer than 1 week..." How many first PA blocks are longer than one week? If you can't give an estimate, people are going to ask why this is even needed. See WP:CREEP. 2) "succeeding blocks being increasingly lengthy" Not necessarily. If someone got a PA block five years ago, let's not hold that up as a "pattern". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review
Greetings Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! I am sorry that I didn't reply, rather I couldn't. I got into a little accident and was not able to type. But now I can do fine with my left at least. I would like to offer my sincere apologies for the unresponsiveness. Cheers, — <b style="color:black">Yash</b><b style="color:grey">talk</b> <b style="color:grey">stalk</b> 06:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem at all Yash, I'm very sorry to hear you weren't well. But as long as you're OK now, that's the main thing! Take care,  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again
Asana edit warrior is back with a new user name.... I've tried to treat them as a good-faith newbie against all common sense (seriously, what brand-new editor uses "undo" to revert a redir in their FIRST edit?) but now they are starting shenanigans. Just a heads-up. Also. --bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - keeping my peepers peeled. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Setting up my watch with immediate effect. Winged Blades Godric 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Echoes Cover addition request
Hello, you recently reverted one of my edits for it being "unsourced" and "unnecessary". I fail to see how it is unsourced since I included a reference. I also fail to see how it is unnecessary since it is a valid cover version that garnered lots of attention. How does it compare with the other Echoes cover that is currently in the "Cover Versions" section? If more sources are required then where do I post them? WisemanOnceSaid (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo, sorry for the delay, and sincerest apologies for casting the aspersion that you inserted unsourced material. But, over all, WP:MUSICBIO applies; basically the same criteria that is required for an article to survive deletion is the same criteria that allows its insertion elsewhere. Hope that helps! Take care, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Many thanks, Tony Tonyrush (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. Unfortunately, no, I can't be more specific, due to the fact that I have never edited that particular article, and, indeed, until you did yesterday it hadn't been edited since November last year.
 * However, I did just remove a small but slightly spammy addition to your talk page. Please see the page 'WP:User pages' for more information. Nothing personal against your good self, you understand. Incidentally, and more generally speaking, you might wish to provide your edits with a reliable source- it's a fundamental requirement, and without them, material is liable to be summarily removed. Take care! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Fortuna, in that case, I don't understand why you said it contained advertising or promotion - it doesn't. In addition, I did provide a reliable source in the citation.  I'm thoroughly confused by your comments - they seem to be at odds with the facts.


 * Your edit to my Talk page removed my affiliation, calling it 'slightly spammy'. However in Conflict of interest it recommends making any affiliations clear.
 * I've tried to be completely open and honest and I really don't understand your comments. With your edits, there is now no disclosure that I'm associated with my employer. Tonyrush (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The link to your place of business is clearly unsuitable. And I see you added a reference some moments later, apologies. But note that the HSE is a primary source; more details can be found at WP:PST. Also, if you feel you have a conflict of interest (you clearly do feel that, of course) then, as you know, you shouldn't really edit the article itself, but make your additions to the article talk page, for consideration. Cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your username/signature
Just noticed your post on KGirltrucker81's talk page in response to mine, and took note of your signature. By an odd coincidence, I happen to be performing that piece this weekend! (Perhaps not so odd coincidence -- it is an oft-performed (maybe overperformed?) piece!) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That Sounds Fantastic. May I ask- in the eye of WP:OUTING, of close- of your role in the performance? It's still a coincidence though- compared to say this?- CB is probably crumbs. Although I understand it's even getting flashmobed nowadays! Holy Orff! Thanks for the message- that's really cool. Not often this page gets to bask in the (admittedly second hand) glow of the footlights ;)   &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My role in the performance is third tenor from the right. Small beans. But fun to sing! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or as I described you to her indoors: 'He's one of the three blokes at the front'
 * Her: 'That's important, isn't it, compared to all them people at the back'
 * Hah! Blooming proles!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elias Beckingham
The article Elias Beckingham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elias Beckingham for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Alternatively, you could simply write out the results in prose, starting with the overall result icon. Please fix this as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So it defaults to fail, does it? That seems a curious proposition (except for railway signalling, of course). It would help if that was slightly more obvious on the reviewing page. It is arcane to say the least that 'someone doesn't know' that not failing each category... Will fail each category. Hey Ho. Thanks for the note in any case. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  22:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Users for deletion?
Hey, do you know why your user page is populating Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times? It's kind of screwing with the backlog notice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FIM's page was in the category directly. Should be fixed. --Izno (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, if he wants it there, I don't personally have a problem with it. The category police might have something else to say though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for pointing that out IV and for dealing with that Iz; I see, I put myself into that category, instead of linking to it. That must've looked odd to say the least! Thanks both, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The category police?! Hey, You dirty rat, you miscategorized my brother!!! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (talk page rodent): <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  — 15:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything okay (user page actually deleted)? —  Paleo  Neonate  — 23:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo  s'all :) Cheers though! 🍺  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  04:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to know it's nothing major <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  — 04:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto. And it is quite a relief to see a blue link there again! --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Morning, always good to see you here ma'am! ;) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Me whistles
/me whistles — Paleo  Neonate  — 07:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * eh,, whistles?! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Innocently, of course (see your user page). bbl, —  Paleo  Neonate  — 07:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User page
It looks like another admin deleted some revisions of your user page in 2015. I'm not sure what they deleted so I've restored all the revisions since that was done. If you want me to restore the rest let me know.  Hut 8.5  06:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine thanks all the same, I seem to remember it was just trolling. Apologies again for mucking you about! Cheers &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Remembrance of poofs past
Fortuna, can you help me remember where this whole "poof" thing started? Someone (you?) on some talk page made a reference to a British game show, and I said, "As if I was one of you English poofs". Can you recall where that was? Ping me.  E Eng  15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blame me right. It was at ANI, with this edit, where I clearly wasn't supporting your block  :)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

my apology to you from me user:Ukrainetz1! for that no sense ani report, i already apologized to the user i brought up User talk:Bonadea
sometimes i get bit confused it does not happen often but next time i will try not to make such nonsense reports without thinking twice..again...it does not happen often! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  09:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, hopefully you'll sort out any little problems! I'm sure you're going to be a great editor, cheers! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Somebody else has us so conditioned that this might have been misidentified as their posting at ANI. That banned user gets blocked so fast...well, you know.
 * you are absolutely correct, and if it had been necessary I would have undone. Luckily, the OP seems to prefer it gone. But yes, it had all the hallmarks didn't it- the grammar, accusing, etc. All's well that ends well though. I hope :) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Having said that- and I don't particularly insist either way- that form of words is traditional WP wordery, and this is a current featured article, so frankly there's very few changes that should be made to it without a talk page discussion. But, cf. what e.g. User:Cassianto might suggest; I'd defer to them in this things concerning this article (and indeed most FAs). thanks for the note  :) Happy editing!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , this is one of mine. Unfortunately, we don't usually cite lead sections, per WP:LEADCITE, but the guideline do recommend:  I don't feel as if this is one of those occasions.  It was the Carry on series that brought her to the country's notice; moreover, the Carry on's came before Sykes or any of her other, well-known performances for television. Although this is supposition, I would wager that most people of a certain age (FIM's, for instance 😆) who have the name "Hattie Jacques" said to them, will think of the Carry ons.  I can probably modify it to take away the certainty of Hattie being known mainly for the Carry ons, but any further discussion as to what that is should really be over at the talk page.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk  ' 09:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I forbid you to discuss my age anywhere else. Someone'll be bound to mention bloody maturity or something juvenile like that :p  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you're far too cynical about the people on this website! Even the best of us need to do a little growing up at times.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate: I'd forgotten how gorgeous she was :)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  19:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Neville-Neville Feud
I think Neville–Neville feud is ready for review, I tried to address all the points that raised in his review. Seraphim System ( talk ) 13:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice one I note you've certainly gone extras on the details  :) I've reset the GA nomination, so we just sit back and wait. OR, if you know anyone who wants to do it, I guess it's OK to ask around. Take care,  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Prinsipe Ybarro
Sorry, I can't comment, the thread was whilst I was at work. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, for someone whose talk page has a massive sign (nicked from, I note!) claiming to want to chat, they don't seem overly keen on conversations! Well, the crux of it is is that I managed to persuade them to change their Sig from FFE100 text on FFFFFF background, and they did; but in not sure the current one is a great improvement re. MOS:CONTRAST. Thanks for looking in though   &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I need help...
Do you have a link to the user box pages? I cannot find them anymore which sucks and now I'm frustrated from looking for them. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I don't know much about user boxes. I've only got two. And they're pretty hidden, in the eye of the sky where no man can find it. Happy editing all the same! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

I got called a "anacap bullshit (BS) article runing voiceover" for assuming WP:GOODFAITH, he dislikes that i try to reason with him
User:Snooganssnoogans went against No personal attacks by calling me a "anacap bullshit (BS) article runing voiceover""don't ruin this article just because you can't promote your ancap BS in wikivoice" while i tried to assumme WP:GOODFAITH (hoping he was happy for helping him) not any "wikivoice" just me being polite to him what did i do wrong? how did i "ruin" this article by removing very old unsourcedContentious or orignial research material (big problem since 2011 since article notice), he does not care me complainng about his personal attacks (he did it again now am "passive-agressive" the olny way this would not be another attack is him being a a diagnostician at a real faciliy or a world health organisation working on ICD-10 project Ukrainetz1 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello ! What's 'ancap' then? Although I should probably ask User:Snooganssnoogans that! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you said: "what is"... then you said : "ask the user who called youre a bullshit article runing voice over"..? (which i already did) please READ THE SECTION before commenting, I GOT A PERSONAL ATTACK HE CALLED ME A BULLSHIT! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ARE YOU JUST MAKING FUN OF ME AND THE THING THAT HAPPENED? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK- hold on a moment Ukrainetz1. Alos, This is the second time you've given me an edit-conflict on my own page! ;) EDIT- calm down,, I'm not making fun of anybody. You keep giving me edit conflicts and I haven't even read your original llink yet! This is my FIFTH ******* edit conflict! &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He called Anarcho-capitalism BS, not you. Please move on. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainetz1 To deal with a personal attack which I have delt with many times is to stay calm and confront then calmly and in a friendly manner. If that doesn't work tell someone who's been through it to help go and talk the situation out. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * am sorry but see no Blocking_policy did or did i not "confront then calmly and in a friendly manner" see this section. lets look again of what he said "YOU can't promote YOUR ancap BS" i dont like anacap if anything id prefer something totaly diffrent, as for for my friendlyness "problem fixed! i hope you are happy user:Snooganssnoogans" per WP:GOODFAITH, now for how long will this charade go on before the user is blocked? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting it simply - the user isn't going to be blocked for that edit summary. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As you'll see if you read the edit summary you just quoted, the editor referred to your edits, and did not call you anything. No personal attacks, at least not from the other editor... Please drop the stick, Ukrainetz1. --bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - they did. Dropped it all over my talk! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I regret nothing. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder; tout ça m`est bien égal. have a great weekend. Cheers!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Édith Piaf 914-6438.jpg

Ukrainetz1 As long as until I find someone to block them. I am on your side 100% Dinah Kirkland (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainetz1 Or until someone does I should say. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, please see WP:ADMINSHOP and stop giving bad advice. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry wasn't thinking when I said that. And I only said be calm and friendly how is that bad??? And Ukrainetz1 Can I have a link to where they did this? Just so I can look it over. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The situation here, and one often forgotten, is that WP:CIVILITY ≠ WP:NPA. Whilst in no way mutually exclusive, a personal attack in, put simply, disparagement of an editor based on their / or perceived personal characteristics, not the edits they make. After all, we are all (or should be) editors; it's what we do. If we couldn't criticise others' edits at all, then Featured Articles would still look like this :) The question is whether a comment plays 'the person or the ball.' A comment about the editor is about the individual; a comment about an edit or its content is playing the ball. As mentioned, all within the bounds of civility. But there is, as you may have noticed, far greater laxitude with that than outright personal attacks. WP:TLDR: NeilN is right, of course- saying that something is BS is not automatically taken to mean the editor is composed of the same BS. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

O Fortuna
 * claps* bravley and nicely said. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

but he is calling me nazi!

 * i said am not advocating nazism! he make it look like that by removing my replies! my father side is ukrainan my family could gotten exterminated due to Generalplan Ost Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is calling you a Nazi and where? Diff please? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor you originally complained about hasn't edited since this conversation begun; and I can't even see a reference to nazis or their ilk. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I read over the contributions. How do I say this... I'm out. He did nothing wrong and was calm about telling you. So I do not think he should be blocked. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the whole thig is probably a big misunderstanding, exacerbated by one party's (quite) blunt edit-summaries and the other's massively broad misinterpretations. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!
I'm terribly sorry for have contributing to the recent argument on your talk page! And probably giving you ton of notifications... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Np. Life would get boring otherwise. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

True. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In need of assistance
Me and my co-editer BlbAtp Have co-created a Draft page called Draft:Dinah Liddell (Alice In Wonderland) But neither of us know how to upload images and I use my mobile device so I don't get the option to do so. Would you mind taking a look at the page and helping us with images? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen that page already :) I admire your spirit. What images have you got / are having problems with? Pictures on WP are, frankly, something of a minefield- not so much the technicalities of uploading, but more the legalities of copyright. Still, let's have a look.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We aren't having problems we just don't know how to upload T^T Dinah Kirkland (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's so frustrating to be honest. I even got commons and I still don't know how. I've read all the guides and I cant understand it -_- Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Note
I hope you don't mind that I fixed the "ERRONEOUS LAYOUT" of a few headers<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">. Have a good day, — Paleo Neonate  - 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * strictly the 'sorry' and 'but he is calling me a Nazi' headers were subsections of the main 'ancap' section. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I hope that is now also fixed, — Paleo Neonate  - 08:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it didn't matter, I just meant they were part of the same conversation- which was itself bizarre enough that you could easily miss it! Take care, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The main "bug" was the presence of first-level headers (one =), so all subsequent subsections were of course automatically being added in it (the "new section" using two, ==). Good day/night, — Paleo  Neonate  - 09:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

ouch
They ain't gonna like this.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But,, it was madness though, wasn't it? I mean four !votes- and 7866 words around them?! :D &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents It was surreal. I actually reviewed his edits thinking he was WP:PAID. Might be, but I'd have a hard time proving it.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be in breach of NPA to suggest that if he was getting paid for this, then 'Don't give up the day job!' probably applies :D
 * My next band is gonna be "7886 words". I mean if I had a band. If I ever create a band. 😜Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * > Embarassing to admit I went to the trouble of pasting the raw text into a word doc  :) that's two minutes of my life, etc!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey North 40 OUtfitters
I erased the page you tagged for speedy deletion from the Sandbox... i thought that section was for experimenting and learning to build in Wiki. I moved the contents of that page after i finished it to draft, and submitted it for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CutterMichaleson (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Still confused as to why a Draft of an article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:North_40_outfitters, is scheduled for deletion when I have it submitted for review by the wiki community... I modeled it off this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor_Supply_Company -- they are almost identical, so if there IS an error or "unambiguous advertising" what sets TSC apart from the one I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CutterMichaleson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the belated reply. They were, I'm afraid, both completely promotional in tone, those pages. They contained little indication of holding encyclopaedic interest or value, except, perhapss, to would-be clients. Which, per WP:NOTYELLOW, etc, is not what we are in the business of providing. For further information on what is recommended material for user pages (and again, what isn't), please see WP:USERPAGES. Cheers! Happy editing, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Shooting of James Boyd Comment
this actually looks like an early draft to which my remarks do not apply. I don't see the parts about the prosecution case I was talking about. But please give me a couple more days to make sure. By the way, I know I have a bunch of articles in draft space I need to finish or not.... is there an easy way to get a list of these? Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again :) You can have all the time you need, like I said, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if you like. I just came across the draft randomly- and I can just as easily forget about it!  As for your drafts, I'm not sure it's possible to generate a list of drafts (unlike, your articles, say), but this is a list of your edits to draftspace since May lat year, if that's any use? Take care- and have a good weekend!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  19:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Question
Hi! May I know why did you revert my 3RR notice from Panam2014's talk page? Specially given this user removed it to then pretend in the AN that I did not notice him. Impru20 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just saw your comment on my talk and fully agree with it. Impru20 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk : TLDR, it doesn't matter if they remove them. Cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the edit-conflict then! ;) no worries. Happy editing!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Signature
Seems like your sig may be broken, it is turning other text blue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, on ANI I guess? I thought that my eyes were going funny- or that my screen was making things up! I'll check it now- cheers. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * AN, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * :p indeed. That was really odd- I did get an edit-conflict just previously, perhaps I copied a character too few or something. Thanks for that though.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't edit comments of other people
Please don't edit comments of other people, as you did, here.

It's one thing to edit notices at the top, and you mistakenly added a duplicate notice, which was redundant and not needed and made it there appear twice.

It is another to remove whole sections on a talk page that you did not originally post.

Thanks !

Sagecandor (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no necessity whatsoever for you to twice make the comments on the Talk:Defeating ISIS page. There is a procedure to follow, and regardless of dups, I did; you did not. Your actions in insisting that your comments are kept come across as WP:POINTy, and baseless in both custom and practice. As such, they will be removed. If you do not approve, then your next course of action is to ask for community input at WP:ANI. But currently, your behaviou towards this GA issue is beginning to verge on the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Incidentally, do not demand editors not refactor your coments when you do this. Cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel my behavior was pointy or battleground, that was not my intention. But please, don't remove entire comments. That is a ton different than changing the name of one subsection. Sagecandor (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, intentions fare poorly against actions. You are deliberately going against WP:AFD in order to make a point against (and others) by linking your issues to the GAR with an AfD he had nothing to do with. That is why it is WP:POINTy. Many thanks, User:Sagecandor.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see how you would feel that way. I'm sorry if I've upset you. WP:CLOSEAFD says nothing about what you are referring to. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're sorrow is not a requirement; why would I be upset? I merely point out to you how there is a procedure for closing AfDs, and you persist with the suggestion that it does not apply to you. Incidentally, the increasing passive-aggressveness is unnecessary, and should generally be avoided; it can often be interpreted in the context of WP:BAITING. Which would be most unfortunate. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  19:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I came across as passive aggressive. I'm actually sincere. I'm glad you're not upset. WP:AFDCLOSE does not forbid editors from commenting in the form of talk page comments, as far as I can tell there is no prescription against speaking listed in that page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When you learn that what is not forbidden is not always what is wise, we will have advanced. Until that point- with all these 'sorries', etc., which WP:AGF instructs me to assume maybe sincere if misguided- I am under the distinct impression that I am near to if not actually being trolled on my own talk page. So, hatted. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  19:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Last comment. Was not an attempt to troll you. I am being sincere. I do thank you for taking the time to give me advice and teachings. Thank you for your words. Sagecandor (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hatting another editor's comments during GA review?
Sagecandor twice reverted and finally hatted my comments with a combative message during a review he was doing. I posted an opinion of the review, and also an objection to an editor adding a section heading to the article unilaterally mid-review. He insists I am involved in a dispute with him - the only dispute is that he flipped out when I wouldn't pass his article...I only involved others to clarify for myself when the stability criteria required for the future (As this effects articles I want to nominate) and also because I am concerned in general that he may be taking on too much. It usually takes me days to complete a review. I think he currently has about 8 open? Isn't that a lot for a new editor? I just wanted others to be aware of the situation, I'm not sure if that qualifies me for having my comments hatted on talk? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revival_(comics)/GA1&diff=785347806&oldid=785347598] and two reverts? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revival_(comics)/GA1&diff=next&oldid=785346899] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revival_(comics)/GA1&diff=785344578&oldid=785344429] Changing my section heading in the review? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revival_(comics)/GA1&diff=785348906&oldid=785347806] ... Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC) It is a simple matter to ask that we please avoid each other for a while. Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) and I had a dispute.
 * 2) Hours later, he shows up to a GA Review page and calls himself "Uninvolved", which is false.
 * 3) He is following me. He is carrying on his dispute with me. He is not neutral. He gives the appearance of impropriety.
 * Not to mention he has left 8 messages on my talk about this over a period of about 2 hours, which I have finally stopped responding to. (And yes, I asked him to stop a while ago.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have self reverted at the GA Review page . Yet, he has not stopped following me. Yet, he has never even acknowledged he was wrong about age of articles being a requirement at WP:WIAGA, which was pointed out to him was false. He was wrong and refuses to acknowledge this. Instead, he chooses to follow me around and harass me. That is not appropriate. Sagecandor (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, he clearly would not have shown up at the page if we had not had a dispute hours before. I think it's best for him to avoid the appearance of impropriety and for us to leave each other alone. Sagecandor (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Carrying on this way in the middle of a GA review is something. I've definitely been involved in some heated exchanges, but I stepped back from this, because GA reviews are different. All I wanted to do was make two comments and invite discussion from others editors 1) I did not think the length of the plot summary was too long. and 2)I do not consider adding a new section heading to be a "minor change" and that I object strongly to a reviewer doing this unilaterally, without any discussion, during an open review. I actually regret responding beyond that at all, because GA review is cool and professional time. At least, that's how I see it. I'm more then a little worried that this kind of behavior—Reverting talk pages, changing other editors section headings, making unilateral edits to a page he is reviewing—could be damaging to the encyclopedia if it continues unimpeded in the GA area. But I am done trying, I honestly don't want to be involved — I hope more experienced reviewers will keep an eye on things for a while. Recusing self.... Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User seems to be unwilling to step back. It's quite curious. All I wanted to do was for him to not follow me around. I hope we can avoid each other for a good while. Sagecandor (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is out of ny depth really, I've done all I can, we just want experienced eyes on this. GA review isnt easy, I'm still learning myself. Trying to go slow, you know... Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I admit to feeling harassed and upset about being harassed. I hope in the future the user and I can get along better. But it's best not to follow someone to another page, hours after a dispute with that person, and claim to be "uninvolved". Sagecandor (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Blum (litigant)
Your input is needed on the Talk:Edward Blum (litigant). The issue revolves around your edit on 3 March 2017 for the What Wikipedia is not page. You added WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY, but I don't see the term bibliography used in the "Wikipedia is not a directory" subsection. My concern about WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY stems from any conflict with MOS:APPENDIX from the Manual of Style/Layout and Manual of Style/Lists of works. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * {{reply|Mitchumch}] Replied there. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Chris Taliutafa Young
Can you review Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Taliutafa Young? There is some common text between this and Template:Did you know nominations/Tui Manu'a Matelita so it would be easier for you since it to tell me what more I need to add to meet the requirements. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Raheja...
I bet that someone in the near future will proclaim on the talk-page that this was the result of your's being an extortionist par excellence. I hear, that the demanded pay-package is reportedly on the lacs! (And some poor civil judge will have to spend a few valuable minutes of his/her life, hearing to the same shit about how the volunteer editing community and the WMF is utterly determined to malign the group!) Winged Blades Godric 09:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Blades... They do seem to have a few tax issues don't they! :D I hope I'm not personally contributing to their bad press!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha!Ha! But surely, if they have spent the resources that they have expended from initially trying to use WP as a vehicle of promotion to insisting on getting their article deleted to outing people, casting aspersions and legal threats on the volunteer community; on solving the grievances of their customers; may-be the intended result could have been partially gained by now.Poor folks! Winged Blades Godric 09:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Classic! true dat :D &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)