User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi

On 13 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the taxi driver in the Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing was later commended for "incredible presence of mind and bravery"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

On 1 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Le Livre de Seyntz Medicines, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1354, the Duke of Lancaster compared his heart to the sea, a fox's hole, and a market-place? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Le Livre de Seyntz Medicines. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Le Livre de Seyntz Medicines), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

On 3 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tommy Wood (International Brigades), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Irish International Brigader Tommy Wood had only been in Spain for 18 days when he was killed at the Battle of Lopera during the Spanish Civil War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Wood (International Brigades). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tommy Wood (International Brigades)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

– Hilst [talk] 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Although thinking about it, continuing a discussion on someone's talk page is an odd way of 'not wanting to continue' a discussion that Nigel Ish started in by now *checks notes* two other venues, and has now also taken to Users:Kyteto's and Thebiguglyalien's talk pages, ywo completely inoffensive editors who have somehow earned Nigel Ish's ire. Or perhaps not enough people were paying him attention. SerialNumber54129 18:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to write this last night and my battery ran out just as I was wrapping up. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "entailed in the male line"; the barony of Cromwell was created by writ of summons, so heritable by heirs general, rather than heirs male. The situation on Cromwell's death is exactly that described in Abeyance#History: no account is taken of the relative seniority of daughters, so the title lapses when their are coheirs. (I rewrote the phrase "could not be split between two female heirs" because to me that implies there are circumstances under which a peerage could be split.) Payling just says "elevated to the Peerage as Lord Cromwell, a promotion facilitated by Neville's death four weeks earlier", so I don't feel that I broke source-text integrity on the rewrite (I wouldn't defile one of your articles like that!). Indeed, Cokayne says on p. 554, note "b" that Bourchier "was not a coheir himself", so I'm reluctant to describe him as "remaining heir", as the article does now. I don't want to encumber Neville's article with legal finicking that's rather tangential to the man himself, but I do think the phrasing should reflect peerage law a little more closely; I'd like to hear your thoughts.

As you saw, I spun up a stub on Humphrey Bourchier, 1st Baron Cromwell, which you might be able to pad out from some of the sources you've used, especially Payling. It looks as though Payling is writing his biography for HoP (he must have been in the Commons as well before 1461), which will make interesting reading when it comes out. There's an episode in his history which I don't quite understand: Bourchier becomes chamberlain of the receipt again at Edward's accession in 1461. In 1464, John Leynton, who as the legal mind among Ralph, Lord Cromwell's executors had presumably been sparring with Neville & Bourchier, is appointed auditor of the receipt, and in the next year receives, fide the Calendar of Patent Rolls, "a writing of Humphrey Bourgchier, knight, lord Cromwell, one of the chamberlains of the receipt of the Exchequer, under his seal at arms dated 31 August, 5 Edward IV, granting to the said John for life the said office of one of the chamberlains of the receipt of the Exchequer with the appointment of one of the ushers of the Exchequer and other officers, as granted to himself by letters patent dated 17 July, 4 Edward IV". Apparently Humphrey wasn't supposed to be alienating his office, as the writing is enrolled along with "pardon to the said Humphrey and John of their trespasses in this matter; and confirmation to the said John for life of the said office and all fees thereof." That seems rather relevant to the state of the settlement in the 1460s, and I'm a bit surprised it didn't come into Payling's piece!

Richard Beauchamp, 2nd Baron Beauchamp may also be of interest to you given your recent work: there's an unsourced paragraph there that brings his wife's adultery into the trial of Burdet and Stacy, although the Croyland Chronicle is ambiguous about which Lord Beauchamp's wife was implicated (the 1st or 2nd).

As always, I enjoy reading your historical articles, which are both lucid and full of pertinent detail. Cordially, Choess (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

On 12 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 15th-century cause célèbre saw a duchess dead, innocents hanged, villains and sorcerers drawn and quartered, and eventually the king's brother executed in a butt of malmsey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judicial murder and George, Duke of Clarence. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

On 18 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Burdet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Burdet supposedly plotted treason against King Edward IV in 1477 after he killed Burdet's favourite white deer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Burdet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Burdet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

1=Launchballer 00:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

On 20 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ankarette Twynho, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ankarette Twynho's hanging for poisoning a duchess was a cause célèbre, and has been described by one modern historian as "judicial murder"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ankarette Twynho. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ankarette Twynho), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

jlwoodwa (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Fortuna imperatrix mundi! Your work on 1981 Irish hunger strike has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria, I'd forgotten all about that one! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

On 16 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Stacy (alchemist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Stacy warned the Duke of Suffolk that a Tower would be dangerous to him; Suffolk was later murdered by sailors on a ship called The Nicholas of the Tower? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Stacy (alchemist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Stacy (alchemist)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

On 19 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roger Tocotes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roger Tocotes was suspected by the Duke of Clarence of masterminding the Duchess of Clarence's death, but Tocotes avoided capture until the King got involved? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roger Tocotes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Roger Tocotes), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

On 8 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2025 North Sea ship collision, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when MV Solong struck MV Stena Immaculate in March 2025, the former ship was falsely reported to be carrying highly toxic sodium cyanide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2025 North Sea ship collision. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2025 North Sea ship collision), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for volunteering at WP:RX ... your research is helping me get the Atlanta Compromise article promoted to FA status. You and all the volunteers at WP:RX are rock stars! Noleander (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Noleander! Feel free to ask about other sources, I'll be happy to... advise  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not want to make a reply comment on the coordinator page because I did not want to make it into a big deal or any type of contention. Nor did I want to appear to be critical. Since you commented, I thought I would just leave you a note on the side instead.

I occasionally struggle with templates that are somewhat out of the ordinary and other programming tasks, unlike some others such as Hawkeye7 who have more skill and experience with such tasks. I actually tried to change the alphabetical order and for some reason was not getting it done without deleting some lines. I saw no reason to mention that generally in a reply. Hawkeye7 is right, the bot does not do it and it is not in the instructions, just in the introduction to the voting page. I am reasonably sure that is meant to show neutrality. Also, I forgot about the tally box and I suppose the others did too. The bot also does not do that but Hawkeye 7 has written that he will change that. In my experience, it has magically appeared each year. So in view of the fact there were only five candidates, and I did not want to spend more time trying to change the listings, I gave up on alphabetizing of the entries.

TomStar81 is right that the project "has seen better days" in one sense. There were more coordinator candidates that coordinator slots for some years in the past. Now, the project could use more coordinators. The number of coordinators for the project was set up at 10 plus the lead so that there would be enough coordinators to handle all of the tasks and make some other writing and editing contributions, even if a few coordinators participated only sparingly. As it is, the number of coordinators has been declining over the past few years. We are at a low with only five candidates. Luckily, the project also has had some coordinator-type work from a few coordinator emeriti, former coordinators and experienced users such as yourself. That's not really enough to do all the work of the project, especially promptly. On the other hand, many projects now exist in name only with no coordinators or guidance. They may have an occasional random comment on the talk pages but that is about all.

If you may wish to be added to the coordinator group, the lead coordinator can co-opt new coordinators at any time before the next election and I think would do so gratefully after a request. I hesitate to suggest you add yourself to the list at this late date. However, I think that nobody would object if you did so. Also, you would assuredly get the one vote that is needed to be elected this time around.

Thanks for all your good work for the project and Wikipedia in general. Donner60 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Donner60: Apologies for making what was meant, honestly, to be a smart (albeit lighthearted) remark, but which I see could have sounded sarcastic. Sorry about that—I wasn't attacking coords, who all do a pretty intense job (there always seems to be something to do!) with fewer people to do the work. I want to say, thanks for this message, though. It's really nice. I don't get so many supportive messages (some would say I get all the support I deserve, perhaps!), but this is really cool. I appreciate the vote of confidence! And thank you, friend, for everything you do here  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem. I did not really take it as sarcasm so much as something in need of an explanation and maybe a further comment. It probably really needed a general explanation on the page itself for anyone interested in the topic. Then again, I did not want to insult you (inadvertently though it would have been) or to cause any contention with TomStar81, a long-time and valued contributor. As I noted, I agreed with his comment when taken generally, though I thought it was a bit unnecessary under the circumstances. Thanks for your contributions to the project and to Wikipedia in general. Donner60 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing-up Every Breath (novel)! Draftifying it was silly of me. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi sorry I did not mean distruption. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelthegreat: No harm, no foul. Thanks for this. FYI, I am not an admin; for a list of users with this permission, see this page. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fortuna imperatrix mundi Polygnotus (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

+1, it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected. Toadspike [Talk] 13:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

​​ Thanks both for the vote of confidence, it's kinda heartwarming. Unfortunately, it would be a bloodbath, honestly. But it's nice of you—both editors to be highly respected—to suggest it! (On that, Toadspike, maybe encourage Poly along that road instead...?) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, now that is a good idea...I'll have a look around... (*scurries off into the background*) Toadspike [Talk] 15:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Just commenting here that I was about to ask you to run in the upcoming elections before I saw this section. You would make a great admin, and you'd easily have my support. I can't think of a single reason you would be opposed. You should run! QuicoleJR (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

...is delighted with your talkpage and has parked her big butt on it to gobble up the food as it falls. (I'm helping with the donuts.) How wonderful that more and more just keeps on coming! She may actually stop "accidentally" eating little users! Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC).

Hi Fortuna, I had been meaning to ask you this for a few days now but I have been really busy and absent-minded lately. Have you considered making a run for adminship in the December election? The Call for Candidates just started, and I think you would be a great fit for the role. I know you already have the support of plenty of users, and you are already essentially an admin without tools, so why not make it official? If you don't want to, that's fine, but I figured I'd ask since having you as an admin would be great for the project. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It was an interesting read when I reviewed Poisoning of Abbot Greenwell at FAC. I look forward to more of your articles in the future. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Ecstatically happy rain of food! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 13:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC).

Fyi Yngvadottir, Cultural Memory in the Icelandic Contemporary Sagas: Constructing Continuity at a Time of Transformation is open access at De Gruyter Brill here. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Pdf page open for after somebody kicks the server :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem Yngvadottir but isn't the d/l button working for you? Never mind, I can email you it if you want? —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I was getting server errors for a few hours. Now have it, but there are things I'm surprised she didn't cover :-) (/me reveals peculiar interests.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Today you can watch the 2010 premiere of a violin sonata with the composer also the pianist. DYK that around 30 more composers are mentioned on the page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It must be your lucky day! Not one but two of your FAs have been selected to be TFAs in March. Loveday (1458) and 1937 tour of Germany by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor will be offered up so the hoi polloi can move all their commas around. What joy. Uncle Wehwalt, who has arranged this rare treat, wonders if you could check that you are happy with the blurb the latter ran with in 2021 and if you would care to have a go at a blurb for the former. I suspect he is hoping that you will be so excited you will shoot the messenger. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I've written the first one here and will use the same blurb as last time for the other. Try to keep an eye on WP:ERRORS if you can, they've been making an issue of unexpected things. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wehwalt and Gog the Mild: Apt: an article about a disgraced royal who got stripped of his titles and then hung out with the wrong people compared to, err, a disgraced royal who hung out with the wrong people and then got stripped of his titles... "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony". —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I see that the enforcement of the UCoC has not been explained clearly so that some editors, including some experienced editors, do not know that its enforcement is primarily the responsibility of each project, including the English Wikipedia. We, the English Wikipedia, are responsible for the enforcement of the UCoC. I think that we, the English Wikipedia community, are in agreement that there was a violation of the UCoC, and are in disagreement as to how severe the sanction should be for the violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

(Bad language on my own talk page alert.)

Don't you dare swan onto this fucking talk page and try and patronize me McClenon with your some editors, including some experienced editors crap, when I am the only editor you chose to post to. I know perfectly well how the fucking UCoC works. I was daring BusterD to put his money where his fucking mouth is and actually make it official. But it's much easier just to throw "UCoC" in like a boogeyman when you don't actually have to prove it. And having the chutzpah to shrill about a chill factor at the same time is frankly hypocritical, if unsurprising: there's a subtext. This whole hysterical campaign—not solely by BusterD—is only superficially against Joseph2302; more broadly it's against the principle of RECALL itself, which some editors would like to eviscerate by any means possible. Take care, —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I have just followed the article at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks I have had repeated personal attacks from the user KJP1, I had asked them in replies to refrain, they had not, a series of personal attacks had repeated at [] I used the template at TWK given on wikipedia for warning against personal attacks, in hope this would put an end to such personal attacks. You issued me a warning, I didn't intentionally do wrong. How do I deal with being on the receiving end of another users repeated personal attacks? I have already asked them to stop --Pennine rambler (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you file an ANI? I suppose that could work. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 13:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Campssitie: Sorry, what is this exactly? Do you frequently advise editors top go to ANI? It is meant, in spirit, to be DR 'of last resort'. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see Cullen328 has spoken to you about idle speculation already; I think similar advice probably holds true here. (And while you're here, with only five edits to article space this year, you might consider spending less time on the drama boards generally. HTH.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry, meant to say to go to the dispute resolution board, must have forgot it existed.

I’ll take your advice to heart, and no, this is the first time I have told someone to make a report at ANI 😅 I’ll spend less time now at drama boards, thanks! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 14:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Campssitie: But you didn't step away, did you. I strongly advise you take Ponyo's advice if you won't heed mine. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll try to implement measures to stop myself, for now i'll be less.. talkative on Wikipedia, Buh-bye!

P.S. Take this as a last message; I won't reply after this. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 19:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for help for SV's talk! - Today's main page features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) - places have vacation pics, slowly accumulating -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Beautiful photo!! The bokeh and the slight bloom from it makes the image feels almost magical. And yet another scene of reality no computer algorithms can dream of parallelizing. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 15:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you, love it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Just here to devour some more rain of food. Irresistiblabble! (More donuts, pretty please.) bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 13:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC).

It's worse than the fly on my page !!! - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 14:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

[Interested.] Fly on little Walter Roxy's page? Nice crumb of protein? [Bishzilla lumbers over to eat the fly. Small but sweet.] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 15:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC).

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D review four works Op-ed: GGOTCC discusses the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Timeline: This month in military history

(This message was sent to User talk:Serial Number 54129 and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we discuss different patterns in articles about years on different Wikipedias, we present the video of the Wikifunctions presentation by Nicolas Vigneron at the last Celtic Knot, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Also, we remind you that if you have questions or ideas to discuss, the next Volunteers' Corner will be held on March 2, at 18:30 UTC (link to the meeting).

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

	Greetings, Fortuna imperatrix mundi. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Drm310
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we introduce the possibility of creating a function that deals with references and a Wikifunctions internal clipboard, where you can temporarily store any piece of code in order to paste it somewhere else, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted my request on ANI. Why was this done? Pipoin (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pipoin: Indeed I did, accidentally—see WP:EDITCONFLICT, which occur frequently on high-traffic pages. But also see that I restored it when I realised. All the best, —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see that you restored it. Thank you! Pipoin (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User talk:Serial Number 54129 and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hey @Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Just wanted to let you know I performed a split, so that there is a distinction between the supports for the TBAN and INDEF. I know you didn't formally propose it, but for the closers benefit, I hope you don't mind that I did this. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Not at all 11WB, thank you—I probably should've thought of it myself. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that you have left warnings to the TA. I won't reply to them further – there is no benefit to further derailing the OPs thread, feel free to hat the sub-thread from my reply to TA onwards as 'derailment' as a clerk action – though I am morbidly curious what they think my argument is and what accusation I am defending against. Mayhaps just a DFTT situation, but they just cannot seem to grasp that not all incivility is composed of personal attacks. The difference between 'you are an idiot' (PA) and 'you wrote an idiotic comment' (RUDE, usually). I had spade in mind penning it and just posted my actual thoughts. I ought to show more restraint and neither bait nor take the bait. Thanks as always, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Clf addendum: I mean hatting starting '13:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)' to '12:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)'. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Asking me to clerk ANI?! I didn't realize you hated me so much ;) ^[FBDB] No worries, but is it urgent? I seem to have spent most of the bloody day there so far! (Apologies for delay BTW—see thread below.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Arguably more offensive than anything there. No urgency, it can stay as is. My concern was it detracting from the OP's complaint, but it will be archived without action. The reported offense is too mild/infrequent/trivial. Seen below, a quixotic interpretation to be sure. On the plus side, I did just learn of this essay from it. Fortunate I hadn't seen it earlier. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: on consideration, I've done that, in that, even if it is archived, at least people will be able to focus on the discussion ("and nothing but the discussion"). I didn't call it a derailment, which would in effect accuse you (as the first-hatted editor) of instigating the derailment, whereas I see an accurate reply to the TA, if doused with some asperity  :)

That's got to be one of the best essays going. It raised a few snorts! And hey, a gratuitous photo of Nixon in unfriendly surroundings never goes amiss... Hope you're well. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am; I hope you're well too. I did see that you've accumulated an impressive collection of featured articles, but split between two pen names. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, never noticed that. Another Lokian effort to confuse the Wiki! I've messaged yer man in charge there, who'll probably deal with it at some point. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am rather confused to what you think WP:DENY is, can you tell me what you believe it to be? Also, saying I don't know what I'm talking about is a bit of a stretch when this is quite literally the area I work in on Wikipedia. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

What I think WP:DENY is, what I believe it to be is a short, but important essay, written in plain, lucid English, that suggests how we deal with the remnant edits of trolls and vandals. I know what you think it is, and since this is "quite literally the area [you] work in", I'm now hoping that you don't make a habit of implicitly suggesting that fellow editors of being such True vandals and trolls that their edits need expunging.

Anyway, if you want to discuss the essay further, I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Never called them a vandal or troll, and that's the issue here, you are miss understanding what this is. WP:DENY does not mean trolls and vandals should have their comments removed, it means you, even if you are good faith and a long standing editor, should not be giving them recognition, and that nobody should give them recognition (which could mean removing their edits, but also means more that that). It gives them reason to keep going, in fact, it says it right here

Denying recognition and infamy neutralizes common primary motivators for vandalism and disruption.

I did not remove the comments because I thought they were trolling, it's upsetting to even know people would think that, I removed them because it gives Sugar Tax more reason to go after the editor in question, which gives more reason for them to evade. I'm not trying to be aggressive with you, and I don't like how much this is escalating, I just don't need people going around thinking I think our long standing editors are trolls.

Again, I did not remove the comment because I thought it was trolling, I removed it because it only added fuel to the flame. Cheers and I hope we can leave this behind us. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, I did not remove the comment because I thought it was trolling, I removed it because it only added fuel to the flame. Cheers and I hope we can leave this behind us.
If you are going to take anything out of this, please at least just read this line. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

	Greetings, Fortuna imperatrix mundi. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: GoldRomean
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we talk about the revamp of the composition language on Wikifunctions, with its potential for further improvements.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I so miss that age of innocence. Thanks for that As far as the actual edit -- apologies for breaking format. I'm a tech nuisance at times. Star Mississippi 19:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to say sorry if I came off as rude or stupid at ANI. Not the intention, I promise. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 16:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Not at all Phlogiston Enthusiast, perhaps just eager, and there are far worse qualities to have! But, of all the places to be eager ... AN/I  ;) You know, it should really be a redirect from WP:MOS  EISLEY ([Insert Obi Wan quote here]). All the best! —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 16:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)