This is an archive of past discussions with User:Serial Number 54129. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
PS: I note that that German town article was only ONE LINE LONG!!! -but, purely coincidentally, has now been nicely expanded to at least Stub-class in the last few hours. A CSD nomination certainly seems to focus the mind around here FortunaImperatrix Mundi17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Im Adepane, have you ever come to Medan? Medan have many news papers, and the big one is that link your delete, I'm not promoted, but you attack me, Please take a look Medan City, Come here, and you will know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adepane (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please desist from threatening me and justify your conduct in not referencing that article. You may have noticed that the reason the PROD template was still there was because I f'ed to do anything about it- HAVING BY THEN ADDED FOURTEEN REFERENCES AND JUSTIFIED THE ARTICLE'S EXISTENCE HERE. Something you singularly failed to do. Is that a personal attack? Or is that simply a SUMMARY OF YOUR INACTION. FortunaImperatrix Mundi19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW I note your (mis)use of the word 'troll': THAT is a personal attack. The bottom line here is that, having done something wrong, and get called out over it, you attack me instead. Pretty obvious. FortunaImperatrix Mundi19:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk Page revert
Hi, I am not going to edit war over your this edit but I believe talk page posters do have the right to redact their own comment if it is unreplied. Also I am unsure if you were trying to undo my redaction why you deleted the content of my this edit. Solomon796809:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. Is {{shortcut|WP:NOBAN}} a reply to me? I haven't reverted any banned editor, I reverted myself! Solomon796810:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I also didn't opened the link and guessed 9wrongly) the meaning. But I am still not sure why you reverted my edit, Paul may do so but you may not. Solomon796810:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* Are we still talking about this? I think it's pretty clear that I will not; and, as per etiquette, neither should you. Let him deal with his own Talkpage and let's all get on with something useful. Ta ta. FortunaImperatrix Mundi10:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay I have reverted you. Also please refrain from making this type of edits on any random editor's talk page in future. Solomon796810:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The conversation then moved to Solomon7968's Talkpage, and continued in a similar vein. Here it will be recorded for posterity.
Hmm, well, I would not lose any sleep over this one. I can't really see an issue. I would try to forget about it if I were you. (Let's face it, there are far worse things happening around the place.) Let me know if you notice any other strange activity and I'll also keep an eye out. Deb (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
there is no copyright violation because mtv copied it form wiki, it's mentioned on their page, primary source for my edits is Interia.pl and OLiS, everything is correct, so stop undo my edits 66.102.129.154 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Before I consider removing this prod, may I inquire about the basis for your concern that this might be a hoax? This family is mentioned in a number of books: [1][2][3]. Some news articles from HighBeam: [4][5][6][7]. Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough! But: 'Finishing Sam'? I did a search of various charcacters mentioned and came up with 0- except an equally suspicious website on a professor who has written on them and somehow tied them into an arc with the Third Reich! FortunaImperatrix Mundi17:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Richard III article
Dear Fortuna, I would like to thank you for recently improving on the a.m. article by adding more precise citations than the ones I was able to provide when I contributed with the references on e.g. the allegations on the validity of RIII's marriage, etc. However, I feel you have unproperly taken the liberty of deleting as "trivial" a short contribution I added today on his childhood, one that was duly supported with a VERY precise quotation from a modern historian. It was 1 sentence backed up by the corresponding citation that did not make the article excessively long, or much longer than it already is, yet imho made it richer for users in the perspective of documented medieval habits regarding marriage alliances among members of the noble class and the assumption was no more speculation than Ross' citation with the generally accepted idea that Richard of Gloucester (later King Richard III) and Anne Neville first met at Middleham. I will add that sentence again as soon as I can, and I would like to ask you to restrain from deleting it again because I think it would make the users the poorer with some interesting, even if not vital, information on medieval lifestyle. Thank you for your kind understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 19:04, 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.
However most of your edits were tolerable- certainly we prefer Ross to Licence!!! Cheers, and happy editing here.
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. User:Isananni 6 September 2014
This sounds interesting - I'm in two minds about her (but haven't read the book). FI, you are starting to remind me of another wikipedian I used to know. Maybe I am just a bit dense. Deb (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I have no idea what you mean. BUT- note that I left discussion with that particular editor before I hit 3RR; safe in the knowledge that the edits would be dealt with by more experienced editors. Which I think suggests a certain growing maturity... ;) FortunaImperatrix Mundi20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Fortuna, I do not know who your peer reviewer is, sounds like a competent University lecturer, but he/she may not have the same feel for communication on the web (needing to be concise) as he/she has for the topic, which I am sure he/she masters far better than me: ("described by Dr. Johnson as", etc.) makes the sentence heavy to follow and you have the citation sourcing the statement. There is no love lost between us, but before discarding my suggestions, can you please at least ask your peer reviewer his/her opinion on this alternate phrasing? Thank you Isananni (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider removing your vandalism warning here as the edit wasn't vandalism at all. In your rush to revert you actually broke the template that DrKillmeoff had fixed in his edit, and then you templated them with an inappropriate and incorrect level 3 vandalism warning. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots15:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diana Rowden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
2004; online edn, Jan 2014 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/67691], accessed 6 Nov 2014]</ref> and [[Mentioned in Despatches]] and in France she was appointed a Chevalier de la [[Légion d'
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Chawinda. 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.
PS. This is just a notification, you do not need to respond or be defensive, although, you need to assume good faith. Unlike you assumed at Justice007's talkpage, two members of same wikiproject are not considered involved unless they have expressed an opinion in a dispute. --lTopGunl (talk)13:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
FIM, it does not help you or me if you are to drop an AGF template to me when I have asked you for the same without being ever involved with you. See WP:DTTR. --lTopGunl (talk)13:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Err helloooo. WP:DTTR applies to you too, if you chose to follow the policy. Arbcom put the sanction template on your TP- not on mine. Do you know why? It is because you have been editwarring- not me. So you duplicating the template merely looks like you are impersonating Arbcom. Do you know what happens to editors who do that? Any guesses? FortunaImperatrix Mundi13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not template you. The notification was an ARBCOM template to trigger edit filter for notification of discretionary sanctions so that you are aware of them. My own message to you right below that was hand written and with care to not turn it into something like this. Unless there's some WP:Competence issue with understanding the English of the notification, there's no impersonation involved and anyone can notify with or without misconduct. I don't know where did you bring my dispute into this while I'm talking about your completely unrelated message to justice so I'll not respond to that. Hope that helps. --lTopGunl (talk)13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course you won't; since the fact that you have been TOPIC BANNED does rather cut the high-ground from under your position ("battleground approach, personal attacks, misuse of sources, casting aspersions and edit warring "... NICE). All I will say about your behavior on my TP is that you are either a fantasist, or lack the very competence that you doubt in others. I am now formally requesting you to desist from editing this or any other pages associated with my account or face a further report.FortunaImperatrix Mundi14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the personal attack your comment before this (and in this section generally) is exactly the sort of thing that administrators look for when deciding whether or not someone needs to be sanctioned, as you have demonstrated a battleground attitude, personal attacks and casting aspersions. I strongly suggest that you remove the personal attack from your comment above this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
you are either a fantasist, or lack the very competence that you doubt in others is the personal attack Fortuna. Please retract it. ƬheStrikeΣagle14:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a reference showing it's a copyvio? So far as I know, and can see, it's a 'trad' folk song with many variants. It's been performed by many groups and individuals, and while their performances are copyright to them, the song isn't. There was a discussion about this song on Mudcat Cafe, and no-one there suggested an author - and they usually do if one is known or suspected. (It's a forum, but the participants are very knowledgeable and often argumentative, and don't give up easily.) In the meantime, I've declined your speedy. I would suggest AfD as a suitable next step if you aren't happy about it. Peridon (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I see you posted a red link on my page. I am assuming you are talking about the user who has again filed something against me. As the comments relate to the issue of edit warring, they are certainly not an attack. They are critical information about the former Ip now called Shwan God. The user has a TRACK RECORD of edit warring not only against me but against all the editors who contribute to Moors. even reverting adminsTake time to review the remarks, and I will listen to your advice on keeping cool. --Inayity (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just a reminder that there were only a tiny of couple of changes left to make, and it should be good to pass then. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No, this is not what I am doing. For example just look at the articles last paragraph I have stated some names who were involved with this "scandal" from day 1 and that is the first time their names are mentinoted. That is why I am telling you this article lacks neutral point of view.Rivaner (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
What is up with them? Do you think it has something do with LardoBalsamico's semi-protection request for the article denied on the grounds that both me and him are autoconfirmed users and also the editor or admin stated that there is not enough vandalism to make it fully protected. Is it just a coincidience or have I read to many conspiricay theories these days? :)Rivaner (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "2011 Turkish sports corruption article".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk15:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If it had no templates- how would you know there is a question of notability.... FortunaImperatrix Mundi
Template? "{{unrefenced}}"? Or speedy deletion. Speedy deletion, yes, but editor included the requirement of reliable sources. There are few. OccultZone (Talk) 09:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It was an XfD template which should not be removed until the discussion is resolved at AfD. FortunaImperatrix Mundi
AFD? It was WP:PROD, read "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag." OccultZone (Talk) 10:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beheaded (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
all articles use Itunes as source for digital download format, release dates are sourced with Interia.pl, you cant or you won't answer my question, tell me what source i need to use for certification, as i understand you have problem with Itunes, so i can remove those links, then everything will be fine as i presume ? 66.102.129.154 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir John Conyers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry VII and Hornby Castle. 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.
Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! In recognition of your efforts, I've placed the Apprentice Editor service award on your user page. Feel free to update your award level as you meet the edit count and registered time requirements. Thanks and keep up your good work! --Drm310 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for again reverting vandalism to my user talk page. I find it odd that two or three IP users have appeared recently and started with vandalizing my pages for no apparent reason. I find it hard to believe this is random, although perhaps there is a small chance that is. I think they (if more than one person) must have edited under other IP numbers, or even user names, and have had vandalism reverted by me. In turn, that may have led to blocks but not directly by me since I am not an administrator. I suppose we just have to tolerate this sort of thing and get the vandals blocked if we are to continue to help keep Wikipedia free of the errors and vandalisms this type of person places on pages. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Salvador, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Taylor. 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.
Hello Serial Number 54129. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
Sorry, not a copyvio. When I went to look at the linked site, your speedy tag had appeared on it. At the bottom of the page, it clearly acknowledged Wikipedia as a source. Mirrors like this are always a bit of a problem, but especially the ones that don't make the required acknowledgement. With older articles, it's possible go go into the history and see how the text changes over a period. Any sudden rewrite may be suspect, especially if the editor concerned has edited few other subjects. It's always a good idea to check the bottom of the 'source' page, though. If there's a date there that's before the appearance of the text here, it's usually clear cut. Copyvio can be a bit of a minefield at times. Peridon (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Apropos of my little sermon on my talk page, have a quick look at this peer review, which I have just closed, and see how much my draft was improved thanks to the comments from our colleagues. At GAN one is up against one editor's viewpoint, but at PR you get an invaluable range. I really would take King Richard there if I were you. Good luck! Tim riley talk22:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Tim, we appreciate that. Done! Although I guess it will take a while (backlog?) but thanks for the advice. I'm sure he will be as comfortable at Peer Review as under a car park! FortunaImperatrix Mundi
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard III of England, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Annuity and Retainer. 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.
Wow! That's a turn. I have some very strong doubts on the first paragraph of the Childhood section, it's too long and boring and it just does not flow imho, but am too tired now to rationally think about it. Once I have a draught for a compromise I will post it on the peer review page and see what the others say. By the way, there is another entry in the Childhood section that sounds "sticked" in place, I refer to the one about Richard losing interest in Middleham in adulthood. We both know how that entry came about, hope the misunderstanding has been cleared by my following entry. I did not remove your entry out of respect for a piece of information that was adequately backed up by referenced sources, but no matter how I try, it just does not sound right to me in the context. No tragedy, I suppose. Moreover, if I have to judge on my family's lifestyle, posterity should think my husband lost interest in his home and family since documents (credit cards statements, flight tickets, etc.) place him more ofter away from home (for work) than with his wife and children. Does that mean he cares less for us than he used to? Or how can we relate documental clues to such personal feelings as attachment, etc.? Had we possibly better leave this speculation? Just think about it. Talk soon. Isananni (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
if you notice the edit history, my edits (this IP is standard, so I'm pretty sure I am the only one in the world using it) in this footballer's article were neither inconstructive nor were they reverted, I have been reverting vandalism or akin like crazy in this article and others OK?
Since your message also contains a welcoming message and suggestions on creating an account, the following: thank you for the former. About the latter, I had an account for five years or so (and have been editing for eight overall), AlwaysLearning, but asked that it be destroyed after a sick run-in with a troll that wanted to vandalize articles only to find my stern opposition, this "person" then resorted to taunting and insulting and I, sick of it all, had my account vanished with the intention of leaving forever.
If you didn't already notice, I blocked you. However, I noticed my mistake and then unblocked you. The reason I was confuddled was the series of edits you made on Dusti's talk page. You removed my previous edit and restored an attack edit. I have a feeling you accidentally removed my edit. You shouldn't have restored the attack edit. There is no reason to leave filth on the page and the coward IP wouldn't respond to your question. But more importantly, it confuses admins like me... We aren't the smartest bunch and get confused easily. But, my third grade teacher says Im a improvement. :) Bgwhite (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit and its editsummary, in which you claimed to have removed "trivia". Since there is such a thing a removing trivia from an article, but what you removed was actually a gallery, please be so kind to provide accurate editsummaries and say that you removed a picture gallery. To provide your fellow editors with accurate information. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Executions during the Irish Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Fisher. 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.
Yesterday My article Gurdip Sing Anand was deleted by reviewer ..I need to recreate again so can I use the previous one or need to create new because I m trying to new one but it direct me to contact administrator who is deleted the article
no ...I received alert that speed deletion so i contact to reviewer that I am working with universal business school and need to create a article on our sir shri gurdip sing anand but with in 24 hours he delete the article
Artivle delete by lakun.patra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubskjt (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I remember. It was deleted because it was COPYRIGHT material which is ILLEGAL. Do you know what that means? This is the information, including the website you stole from: 21:59, 25 March 2015 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) deleted page Gurdip Singh Anand (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.universalbusinessschool.com/our-founders.php)
Ubskjt sir this is our college website and we place a info about our founder Mr. Gurdip Sing Anand
Please let me know is that possible to create new one with new text material or possible to old one ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubskjt (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vijay (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page And. 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.
Hello, Serial Number 54129. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Fortuna, can you take it easy with the reverts on Richard III? I know you're responding on the talk page, but regardless of whether you've the strongest argument, you're over the 3RR mark now. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just try to recognise that not everyone understands the subtleties of your argument. I feel you should apologise (to Isananni, not to me) for mocking her, but I don't suppose I can convince you to act like a man (or woman). I sound like your mother now. Deb (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Deb, on a serious note- when did I mock her? I mean, I called her out on an editing issue, but I said it wasn't personal. Or do you mean the religion thing? AND (edit) she insulted me loadsa times.FortunaImperatrix Mundi 13:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC):That's why YOU do not get paid for this kind of things Isananni (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
NOW you see - Isananni does not fully understand this comment: "Okay, okay, sorry! ...Frankie Boyle gets paid for that kind of thing". She has taken it as another insult when in fact you meant it as an apology for being offensive. You should both stay away from one another's talk pages unless you are prepared to give and take. Deb (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
An honest apology would have stopped at "sorry" with no need of your intervention for being uttered Deb, and you know it as well as I do Isananni (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that you? "an ordinary person who came from a small town, humble family". Seriously, though, it's obviously a misplaced user page and I'd have just moved it. Deb (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Negative, me. I've got more sense of humour than that. Can you still see it? I think the 'Cool Fact About...' section needs to be added immediately to MOS ...the possibility are endless. FortunaImperatrix Mundi17:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see it, but I'm not telling you any more. You should have taken notes while you had the chance. Deb (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Richard III of England. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. FortunaImperatrix Mundi 16:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Useful template, thank you. AND I am not attacking anyone, I am fully entitled to remind all editors and admins of the full policy regarding supposed overlinks (which are not even my edits, like in most cases) and pursue consensus in changes to any article by bringing the discussion to the article talk page where it belongs. I will now leave your talk page, keep off mine Isananni (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Apprentice editor is your title on the badge you display on your page, I took it you were proud of it, I don't have one. You can address me as "inexperienced newcomer" in exchange if that suits you, it's the plain truth, even though that does not allow you to name my comments "childish accusations", let alone the rest which I am too tired to copy and paste again. But I did call you "haughty" in a summary of an edit once you deleted a couple of paragraphs as "trivia" (that were then reinstated in the Depictions in culture article) when I did not fully understand how changes could be discussed on the article talk page, for which I apologise. Isananni (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edward IV 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I did not. User:Charlesdrakew, on the other hand, did- an edit to which he beat me by about thirty seconds. You inserted unsourced, subjective material which smacked of your own opinions. I would imagine that any reinsertion of the material again, such as it is, would result in a similarly swift response... and perhaps a more sever one. Ciao. FortunaImperatrix Mundi17:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you deliberately involved to disruptive edits that I edited. You violated the MOS, and policies and guidelines and added the poor writing standard with referring the good faith and NPOV and this. Alexf reverted back to my version. It is not the way to edit the articles. Please do not try if you have any bunch of editors; who may encourage your edits as legitimate, and I am going to block if I revert you. I ask you for the interest of the project, follow the policies and please correct the editing behaviour and do not ignore that the Wikipedia is not a battleground that you are trying to create. I look forward the neutral editors and administrators to maintain the rules to give the advice to stop such disruptive edits. Justice007 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Prod
I remind you that according to WP:Deletion policy once aProd is removed, no one may add it back. The only course is Afd. (The exception is a BLP Prod, which can be removed only if an adequate reference for verification is added) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You deleted the external links and re-added a notice after I added references as external links. Please stop edit-warring with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous032 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not vandalize at all. You were the one who deleted the external references. Do you even know what constitues vandalism? It seems like what you're engaged in is an edit war, not actual vandalism. Please desist from edit-warring / immature behavior.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Learn to check your links when creating them. The last link you posted on my page did not exist. Also, I did assume good faith, however your edit history gives me credible reason to believe otherwise. Anonymous032 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
You suggested that I engaged in "vandalism" which is a personal attack. You also suggested that I engaged in a personal attack with you, when I did not, which itself constitutes a personal attack. Please see personal attacks. Please desist from further personal attacks. Your behavior towards me suggests a pattern of hostility and may be considered disruptive editing. You have already posted on my talk page numerous times and suggested the page I created for deletion several times. You have not sufficiently given an adequate explanation for why the page should be deleted. You have suggested that I was a "vandal." You've been edit-warring with me in the last few days. This suggests hostile behavior.
You need to read WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:VAN before you go throwing the policies around. Just saying something does not make it so. I.e., it may not "be considered disruptive editing," except in your mind. You were already warned about adding spam links. That and the generally tabloid nature of the sources do not constitute another policy you should read- WP:RS. Now leave this TP alone, I thank you. FortunaImperatrix Mundi16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
(uninvolved editor) May I suggest one of you brings this up to WP:AN/I to get opinions from uninvolved editors? You're making things unnecessarily heated and it's turning into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Amaury (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The article's deletion is being discussed per process, which seems to have been taken personally by another editor. Thanks for input though FortunaImperatrix Mundi17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you earned your badge. I have been editing here since 2009 I think, but I just gnome around at WP:RFD and WP:PNT and stuff, I rarely add new pages but translate and stuff like that. Keep going, don't let anyone put you off. It is a pleasure to know you. At WP:RFD, my usual hangout, there are a wide range of people, I don't want to name names, you will see them, one from Canada, one from the Philippines, me an Englishman living in Hungary, I don't think we have any from the US though, we have from various part of the UK. We're a bit short on people from the US to bung in. But never let anyone tell you you can't edit here. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. So Be bold and just do it. People like me, gnomes like me, will tidy up if you get it wrong, but to my mind it is all about making it better. WP:NOTPERFECT, but better. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Jo reggelt kivanok! (Why do I need to take my passport, by the way? ). I know it well, I used to be part of a computer club called London Atari Computer Enthusiasts (LACE) keeping alive the Atari 8-bit, and the leader was from Leytonstone (not quite Leyton, I realise that), and my mum was born in the Sally Army hospital in Hackney, not a million miles away. Probably becoming quite gentrified now, I imagine. Leyton High Street is a right mess though. I once drove through Waltham Forest in a Volkswagen Beetle with no brakes, well I drove back from my university in Manchester, but motorway was easy you never touch your brakes on a motorway if you drive well, but then the chap wanted dropping off in Leyton and had to get all the way through that lot to do so. That was fun with all the sleeping policemen. Only took me two minutes to fix the brake line, too. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
My talk
Well, if they let you out, I hope they put you back again: you're too scary for public view more than once every five years, perhaps Barnum and Bailey would be interested :)
But seriously, thank you for bunging in at WP:RFD, I for one appreciate it. Although we have a set of regulars who do the gnomework, for someone to come in and immediately start contributing, is very special. We're not that scary (I an a teddy bear in real life) and it is a backwater that is somewhat neglected as it is not very glamorous, it's not like WP:DYK where you get on the main page or owt, so it tends to be just a band of regulars churning through it. How User:Tavix finds them, I don't know, cos I just find them on my general ce'ing and so on, but he pulls habits out of rats all the time. Anyway, most people seem quite intelligent there and we discuss things vigorously but politely, and it's quite a wide spread geographically, although I wish we had someone from the US (we have a Canuck, User:Ivanvector). So please, bung in and you are more than welcome to, don't let anyone — not even me — put you off. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There was, in unfortunate fact, nothing salvageable from it, which I only realized having already removed what I had. The whole thing was lifted from that site. FortunaImperatrix Mundi11:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you have removed the fatalities from the Birmingham pub bombings, with the loose justification it is not a memorial (which on the surface I agree with. There are a few things that lead me to disagree with this justification. Firstly, the talk page not only refers to discussions from eight years ago when the article was much less densely populated as to being worthy of inclusion, but also had/has users disagreeing with the label as a memorial. There are other articles (2014 Isla Vista killings, Bloody Sunday (1972)) etc. which list fatalities of notable events. It seems bizarre some articles note fatalities and when some do not. Much more to the point, however, is the fact that WP:NOTMEMORIAL has nothing to do with victim lists, but, rather, it is to stop people starting pages about specific non-notable people as a memorial to them. I shall therefore reinstate the victim list, hoping this does not start an edit war.
I think that, seeing as you almost certainly will disagree with me as to what would classify as a memorial and what not, that we should submit this to the Teahouse Questions page? I'll place the list back on there, then submit this to the teahouse, and if consensus on the teahouse page is to remove it, I'll abide by it. Best regards and let's remain civil.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
AfC if you like, but the consensus position has for many years been that these in-article lists are acceptable. If you want that changed, you;d have to make the case for it. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No- I do not. The consensus is as stands. Also this is not the place for discussing the matter. I'm not sure whether the Teahouse is the forum for deciding consensus; but it's certainly not here, and certainly not by you. FortunaImperatrix Mundi18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is not the place to discuss this matter however consensus can change and that is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. You couldn't even call the talk page discussion on that article a consensus anyways, it comes across as more of a gang-up and bully session, which does not equate to consensus. Mabuska(talk)11:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Where there is a primary topic, the standard format for a dab page is as it was before you changed it - I've reverted. See WP:MOSDAB. Thanks. PamD16:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi, can you explain why the editing with adequate references were reverted? worked/working on this page for hours. this really hurts. The details are not good faith, but added references.Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for watching my talk page. I have had a surgical procedure and have been offline for a few days. I just returned to editing but had not yet removed my offline message. I have done that now. The editor who left the message had written a very poor entry with spelling and grammatical mistakes. I reverted it through Huggle but probably should have left an explanation because Huggle's templates do not cover the situation very well. I used editing tests as the reason. I did wonder whether something that poorly written was meant to be nonconstructive, which would make editing tests appropriate for a first warning. It was not a good addition, regardless of where it was placed in the article. Donner60 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Trout at ANI
Like IBall, who had the integrity to admit he'd overstepped in criticizing my actions, I suggest you do your due diligence, and read the discussion on the CSI: Cyber talk page before criticizing me for something that doesn't actually apply, then revert your addition. You can't discuss in the middle of a mud-slinging match, which was when I stepped away. Prior to that, I was actively in the discussion. It's easy to point the finger, and harder to admit you might have leapt to a conclusion baselessly. --Drmargi (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You reverted the Sherlock logo to the title card which has changed between series and so is less informative and should be removed. So I have to ask why you say improving the page with a standard logo is vandalism? --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, there is no reason whatsoever I should delete my Sharon needles photo, it is mine that I took and all copyright is mine which I have stated.
Is there a reference?
You just reverted an edit on Antisemitism with an edit summary "As per TP". Everything that has been presented on the TP indicates the frequent use of the term "anti-Semitism". I don't understand the reference. GregKaye12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you restored a controversial quote into the lede of this article, commenting "As per WP:NPOV"
Could you please explain how your edit improves NPOV of that article? It would be best to respond at the article talk page, where this controversy is currently being discussed. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Understand your concerns but I do not believe that GiantSnowman is behaving in a fair, balanced and just way - his targeting of the Bantams Banter page is for personal reasons and I am just defending my corner, I trust you have given him the same friendly 'word in the ear'? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC))
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Harrington (Yorkist knight) 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
"The Zionist pressure group "United Synagogue" has called on all its members to press their constituency representatives to reject the motion or make amendments to it
and that
"Meanwhile, Davis Lewin, the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and Research at the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), has hit out at planners of the recognition proposal, describing them as people who openly want to destroy Israel."
It is very difficult to stop Vandalism on this artile. Is there any way to protect the page form IP user edits for a week? - varma (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your concern. There is no edit war. I have dropped my objection to User:23 editor's edits and they can be safely restored. Upon reflection, I see 23 editor's point. Yours, Quis separabit?19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Users are allowed to completely blank pages that they created. They are not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags, except to blank the page, as was the case here. I removed your warning from the user's talkpage, since their edit was valid. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm very surprised how you wish to make sense of "A family of 4 hunting mushrooms"... But I am willing to be amazed! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It does make more sense that way. The article is on my to-do list. Once I expand it, I will probably outsource the list into a seperate article and go through all incidents, rephrase them and find sources. But it'll need time... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother attempting to reason with the IP. The named account is one of multiple socks they have had blocked over the past few weeks - the IP has conveniently neglected to mention the other named accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not ask for the block to be reviewed as it was perfectly within policy- and indeed, it was probably the only option open to whichever admin had seen it first; I understand that. The language I used was- well, possibly worse than has ever been used against me. I think I knew that myself- the moment I hit 'save page': I considered striking it out- and the only reason I didn't is that I thought that would be a greater hypocrisy. My only excuse was a heat of the moment response to being told to F-off, etc. What I should have done, of course, was to report it myself, and leave well alone. Ironically I have no personal beef with the other editor- we crossed swords today on an administrative page, which drifted onto his own TP- and don't recall any previous interaction with him, negative or otherwise. I think, although I might occasionally be robust (obviously, I see, sometimes too robust!) in my attitude, I've never quite let myself go in a response like that before. I'm taking this as an encouragement to not do so again. Cheers. See you in 48 Hours. If I have learned anything from this- it's to re-read (or at least bear in mind) the policies. Thanks again, FortunaImperatrix Mundi 1:52 pm, Today (UTC−7)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would say your blame in that particular matter is negligible.
I appreciate the mature fashion you have responded and have every expectation that this was an isolated incident. At this point I don't think the block is preventative and am going to lift it. Happy editing. Chillum19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Once the AfD has been raised and commented on, I think it would confuse the system to delete it, so instead I have closed it as speedy keep, recording that you withdrew the nomination. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Note individuals who have nothing to say: so they copy other's edit summaries.
I really couldn't care less what other people think. They have their opinions and they're entitled to them, but that doesn't mean I have to agree or care about what they think. TeaLover1996Talk to me ☏10:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
For a start, I would remind you that not caring what people think in a community such as this demonstrates a phenomenally bad attitude. Secondly, you should care, because if you continue to try and deliberately give editors the impression that you have status you do not have, then that behaviour will almost certainly be sanctioned. And another block so soon after your last would doubtless be more severe. Worth your consideration I would think. FortunaImperatrix Mundi11:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: Opinion?
Well, my guess is that this was a some sort of WP:POINT attempt to provoke a reaction from Serbian editors. While I don't have an opinion on these edits one way or the other, it would be quite legitimate to revert them all per WP:BE. GregorB (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@GregorB:, Cheers- I was thinking it was probably just being tendentious, but I don't have that specialist knowledge to be certain that it wasn't true or well-sourced. Either way, I'm keeping my eyes open. All the best, FortunaImperatrix Mundi11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
How is it innappropiate?
Hello, I know that I have my article Yassine El Hamida is nominated for deletion, but how is it innappropiate?. Before you delete it, tell me on my talk page. Jamie Welford (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jamie Welford, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think this version is acceptable in terms of WP:UPYES. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
He's 19, so I don't think that's a problem; and he is trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, even if has some learning to do, so he isn't the sort of Facebooker U5 is really directed at, who is here only to make a user page. JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:AN3
No, that was not supposed to be a sandbox edit or what have you, but a real report. My first one in all these years. Please see the history of Zeybeks and the TP.-- Zz (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it a content dispute about their ethnicity? Perhaps you want WP:DRN or something, but that board was for reporting individual editors as edit warriors. I can see you've been at it with User:Mendess55, but be aware that the history makes you look to be on similar level- and possibly also that you both logged out to war as IPs! FortunaImperatrix Mundi12:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Naah, I use my own account. As for the IPs, I tried to report that, but at the time being, there was not sufficient activity. Maybe I waited too long, because I tried to get a conversation with Mendes55. WP:DRN sounds good, as I do not feel any desire to "punish" him, but it does not address the point here: there are pretty clear standards for references. I guess a third opinion by a "wikipedia official" should help: somebody just telling to please, please, stick to standards of citing sources and to make sure they are reputable. -- Zz (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
DRN
Not sure where you meant this edit to go. If it was in relation to the Anders Feder subpage case, would you please move it above the {{DRN archive bottom}} tag, since the case is already closed and it may mess up the archive bot if you don't. If that's not the case you were referring to, please move it to the case where you meant it to go. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Non-admin closures aren't really a part of DRN, indeed, administrators aren't really an essential element to DRN and most of us who work there aren't admins (including me). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure, you might just be being a bit paranoid - there are lots of football editors around, doesn't mean all of them are socks. Maybe re-raise at SPI if you have a particularly strong feeling. GiantSnowman18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Gamesonomy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Just because a user isn't on my list of users I trust doesn't mean I don't trust them, the list is users I will ask questions the most commonly. That is all. TeaLover1996Talk to me ☏21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)</>
TeaLover1996
Hello, just so you know if you think TeaLover1996 is a sock, you need to be able to prove it. Calling someone a sock without evidence can be seen as harassment and per WP:OWNTALK he's allowed to remove anything you put on his Talk page. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Please don't make sockpuppet accusations on talk pages or user talk pages, whether you have evidence or not. To do so is often construed as a personal attack. the only venue for sockpuppet accusations is WP:SPI. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Correction: It's okay to report obvious duck socks at WP:AIV or on the talk page of an admin familiar with the case. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Elegant
HiFortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Your diff at AIV did not work, because it was not acutally a diff but a link to a talk page section that had already been deleted. If you want to try an elegant and simple way to create diffs, please consider installing the script at User:Ucucha/duplinks.js. There's also lots of info available at Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide as to how to effectively post diffs that will be robust and will be viewable in pop-ups. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TeaLover1996☏12:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It might be best if you two just avoided interacting with each other and that includes not posting on each other's talk pages except for required notices. If another editor is acting out of line, let someone who is uninvolved post an appropriate notice. LizRead!Talk!15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Liz here. You two have been templating each other and hurling accusations and it has to stop. Please get back to improving articles now, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You have absolutely no right to assume an abusive IP is Cassianto logged out, and your post here is a personal attack, based on a guess (a rather bad guess, too). Don't do it again. Bishonen | talk19:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
Considering the nature of the IP's one single edit, yes it was a personal attack and a bad guess, and I'm sorry to see you double down on it. Bishonen | talk19:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
[Adding after a little research.] I notice you were blocked for a personal attack against Cassianto in June (a real doozy, I read it), FIM, and then unblocked because Chillum thought you had "responded in a fashion that indicates to me that this will not repeat".[9] So don't repeat it. Leave Cassianto alone. I really don't see any good reason for you to post this either, btw. As for you, Cassianto, it's much better if you don't post on this page. There's obviously bad blood between you, and I see you're now both arguing with each other on Chillum's page — sigh. If he tolerates that there's not much I can do, but I'd seriously recommend you to stop. Yes, both of you. Bishonen | talk19:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
please do not destroy template
You added a hoax list to List of Airports in Vatican City but it is not a speedy delete.
Your action, if acted upon, would destroy this template.
If you are mad at Wikipedia because of mistreatment (see your barnstar for some ANI problem where you may have been attacked, think of some other way).
In like of your tendentious editing, I would respectfully suggest you go away... in Cassianto's words. You think you can tell people not to edit certain articles? Don't make me laugh son. FortunaImperatrix Mundi12:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to University Challenge, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 930913(Congratulate) 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, and happy editing here.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diana Rowden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Done That is to say, of course. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at 3941e402's talk page.
; see Talk:Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Richard III of England. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Useful template, thank you. AND I am not attacking anyone, I am fully entitled to remind all editors and admins of the full policy regarding supposed overlinks (which are not even my edits, like in most cases) and pursue consensus in changes to any article by bringing the discussion to the article talk page where it belongs. I will now leave your talk page, keep off mine Isananni (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
; see Talk:Edward IV of England for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaLover1996 (talk • contribs) 08:58, June 20, 2015