Open main menu

User talk:Fayenatic london

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Cydebot edit summaryEdit

Hi, Fayenatic london. Your edit Special:Diff/904460140 caused Cydebot to do the following edit: Special:Diff/904460907, which refers to a non-existent discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 0. The actual discussion was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_24#Category:Friends. Ping Cyde, in case it is a bug. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. All Friends seasons edits have the same issue. For example, first season —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

First broken edit summary is in Special:Diff/904460534. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Andrybak: Sorry, that's my fault, I omitted a line linking to the daily CFD log. I'll make a dummy edit to each of those categories, so that there is a corrected link in the page history. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Thanks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done – they needed editing anyway, e.g. for the display title. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Please come help out on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a little. (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'm just finishing for today; perhaps tomorrow. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  Moved from WP:AIV
  • {{Vandal|Ramrancher8}} This user was automatically reported by Huggle due to reverted vandalism after four warnings, please verify their contributions carefully, it may be a false positive  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 18:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I endorse this report. Still adding unsourced content to BLPs after final warning. Like here. StaticVapor message me! 20:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    The editor was blocked following your report, but then unblocked by me. Feel free to provide other examples in a fresh report at AIV.
    I have pasted a copy of the above discussion here, as bots were removing it from the AIV page. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── On their talk page you said "If other evidence is presented which was to show that you have been editing in breach of Wikipedia's policies, then you could be blocked again." I would look no furthur than the previous blocks and countless warnings for unsourced content. I even wrote a well-thought out message explaining why adding unsourced content is bad, yet it has still continued. Sorry that I missed that the edit to Minoru Suzuki only moved unsourced content. The edits that I Dream of Horses reported them for [2], forsure earned a block though. They blanked 8,000 bytes of sourced content without a word in the edit summary. Since my second final warning they have also: Removed content without reason [3], added unsourced content [4], added unsourced content/factual error [5], added unsourced content [6], unsourced/unexplained change [7], added unsourced content [8], added factual error [9], and unsourced content [10]. Wow that was worse then I thought it was gonna be. StaticVapor message me! 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@I dream of horses and STATicVapor: The 8,000-character deletion edit seems to be removing table entries for events that do not have their own Wikipedia article, e.g. Amerika 1st Wunderbar. The editor certainly leaves himself open to criticism by doing such edits without giving an explanation, so I have left him a note about using the edit summary. However, I'm not sure that such conduct deserves a block. I will leave this matter for experienced AIV patrollers to decide that, if you report it again there. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Having their own Wikipedia article wasn't required through and the sourcing was there to prove that they were notable events. Pretty disruptive to blank a ton of sourced content without saying a thing. I do not know if you seen the diffs I linked to? That is pretty ridiculous to me that this user has added dubious unsourced or factually incorrect content a ton of times in the last few days, after two final warnings and a previous block yet nothing is done. StaticVapor message me! 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I "seen the diffs". Apparently you didn't read what I wrote: raise it again at WP:AIV.
The editor's conduct is certainly unwise. I'm just not convinced that it's malicious. – Fayenatic London 07:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The one with the whales listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The one with the whales. Since you had some involvement with the The one with the whales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Category renaming proposalEdit

I don't know whether you got my ping or not; I want to draw your attention to a CfR proposal I submitted today at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 24, since you commented on my previous similar speedy request (which seems to still be open). This is about the capitalization convention for "Category:List-Class ..." versus "Category:List-class ..." and similar. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message here. No, I don't seem to have got this ping; I guess {{ul}} doesn't give a notification. Pings can be tricky – see WP:PING.
I replied at the CFD, and linked to it from the Speedy page and the relevant template talk page. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the ping would have worked except that I had a typo in the edit when I originally submitted it. It only works when the ping is in a new edit that is signed, IIRC from the template instructions. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Confirming, I looked up the template instructions, it only provides the notification "under certain circumstances: it happens whenever the conditions described at Notifications are met. These conditions include the addition of one or more new lines of text, one (or more) of which contains the link, and one of which is signed in the same edit." (emphasis added) Because my original edit contained a typo in the template formatting, it did not generate the notification, and because my edit that fixed the typo did not contain new lines of text that included a signature among those new lines of text, that didn't generate the notification either. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


I have a user claiming to be a victim of an accident. How should they go about having that verified by Wikipedia? CLCStudent (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the context of the question. Is there an article about them, and they want it to mention the accident, or what? – Fayenatic London 13:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This [[11]] CLCStudent (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
As I understand the news report, it did mean opposite direction; but the journalist may have got this wrong. I am inclined to believe the anon editor.
This [12] is exactly what I was about to recommend. Stick to published sources, but omit details that are credibly disputed. – Fayenatic London 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus July 2019Edit


July 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj

A suicide attack on July 11th claimed by Islamic State (IS) near a church in the Syrian city of Qamishli shows that Christians remain a major target of the terror group. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Henry VIII of EnglandKing of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
    2. Elena Cornaro Piscopia – was a Venetian philosopher of noble descent who in 1678 became one of the first women to receive an academic degree from a university, and the first to receive a Doctor of Philosophy degree. In 1669, she translated the Colloquy of Christ by Carthusian monk Lanspergius from Spanish into Italian.
    3. Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
    4. Bob Dylan – American singer-songwriter, author, and visual artist.
      " Take care of all your memories. For you cannot relive them."
    5. Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
    6. Billy Ray Cyrus – Having released 12 studio albums and 44 singles since 1992, he is best known for his number one single "Achy Breaky Heart", which became the first single ever to achieve triple Platinum status in Australia.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
... that The Vision of Dorotheus is one of the earliest examples of Christian hexametric poetry?
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.

When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them.

The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals. (more...)

Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here
Delivered: 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Your CFD closeEdit

I am talking about this one[13]. Two editors objected to the deletion of People from Palmetto, Georgia and the only other editor other than the nominator said they were neutral on that category. That is not a consensus to delete. Please modify your close....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Thank you very much for pointing that out promptly. I have reinstated that one. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


You closed this one way and this the other (based on the arguments). Can you have a look at this and this with similar sagacity and come to some conclusion? I really don't mind which way either goes but they should go (being the last 2 mixed 50:50 ish). Oculi (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oculi: Done. I remember glancing at the Nigeria nomination a few weeks ago and thinking it might go for -s-, but it didn't end up that way. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. No fuss so far. Oculi (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Cryonics pioneers has been nominated for discussionEdit


Category:Cryonics pioneers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fictional heirs apparent who never acceded for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional heirs apparent who never acceded is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heirs apparent who never acceded until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Doubt on JWBEdit

Hi greetings, I've a doubt on generating lists in JWB. Is there any way to generate the list of talk pages of articles listed in categories? That is, when generating pages' list from a particular category, it will generate the list of pages in it. Can we convert the list of pages into the list of their corresponding talk pages? Hope to help if you can. Please help. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 11:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: As far as I can see there is no way to do this directly; you could ask User:Joeytje50 to add it as a new feature.
As a workaround, you could generate the list of pages in JWB, select the list, cut it and paste into a word processor or spreadsheet, edit it there to include the necessary Talk prefix, and paste the amended list back into JWB. – Fayenatic London 06:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. PATH SLOPU 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Closing Categories for discussionEdit

Hi, I get the impression that you and User:MER-C are the only editors who close Categories for discussion. I was involved in discussion of American cattlewomen and American cattlemen in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7. Is there anything I can do to get them closed? TSventon (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the team was quite so thin again. I've closed those two as requested.
Ymblanter keeps on top of the speedy ones; I'm not sure whether he also closes discussions. @Black Falcon, Timrollpickering, BrownHairedGirl, Armbrust, Marcocapelle, and DannyS712: any further help would be much appreciated.
@TSventon: you are also welcome to close some yourself, see WP:NAC. After closing, you can ask at WT:CFD/W for an admin to implement it. The current backlog is visible at WP:CFDAC. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am unlikely to be able to help for a while. I am overloaded with other tasks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Fayenatic, I will read WP:NAC and look into closing some simple discussions, if any discussions are simple. Thanks to you and MER-C for all the hard work you put into keeping Categories for discussion moving. TSventon (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I won't be able to be help much for the time being, but I am trying to gradually become active at CfD again. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • User:MER-C does a great job in closing a massive amount of discussions and keeping the backlog consistently well under 100 open discussions. (While we sometimes approached 200 in the past.) While it is a very vulnerable situation, it still works well. As for myself, I have been commenting a lot in the CfD discussions since during a longer period many 'CfD regulars' were away. Recently this changed for the better though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Non-binary gender and Category:GenderqueerEdit

Hi - I see that you closed the discussion on renaming Category:Genderqueer to Category:Non-binary gender, with the consensus being to make Category:Non-binary gender the parent of Category:Genderqueer rather than re/moving the Genderqueer category (thank you for that). However, a bot seems to have moved the Genderqueer category to Non-binary gender instead. I fear trying to correct this will screw something up as the bot moved the category on a number of related pages as well; can you help? Funcrunch (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Funcrunch, I used the bot to move the whole category rather than move pages using my own account, but I have now partially reversed it. Thanks for watching out and checking the outcome. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Category redirectsEdit

Hi, please could you explain why you suggested a category redirect for "University of the West of England". I have no objection but would like to consider category redirects where appropriate in future. WP:CATRED didn't help me in this case. TSventon (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, a redirect is probably not needed for the top category, but I would retain them for the people categories, as the current names are liable to be added to articles by editors.
Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept sums up my thoughts on this topic. I have now added a link to it at WP:CATRED. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
So the same applies to "People associated with the University of St Mark & St John"? I was asking because UWE was the eighth of nine similar speedy requests I have made recently and I couldn't see how UWE was different from the other eight. Also I didn't want to clutter the speedy discussion. TSventon (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I had never heard of that one, but if editors are likely to add that long name to articles because it was the formal name used in the past, then yes. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Category renameEdit

Hi, maybe you can help with this. It appears that category "Women's World Chess Champions" has been renamed to "Women's World Chess Championship winners". Before the rename, it was inconsistent in capitalization with "World chess champions", but now it is still inconsistent, in multiple ways. How did we get to the point of making it worse? I looked at the discussion, but I do not see the rationale. Sorry I am late with this; by the time I saw the discussion, the rename had already been done. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this notice. I have replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Category_rename – let's continue the discussion there. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Airline accidents and incidents designated as Flight 191Edit

As you closed the CFD for Category:Airline accidents and incidents designated as Flight 191 as speedy delete, I've gone ahead and deleted the category. JIP | Talk 22:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@JIP: Thanks. Once a category is listed at WP:CFDW, the bot will empty it, and usually deletes it a little later. However, in some circumstances it needs a hand. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Template:solenameEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Template:solename. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Recipients of aid from Lewis TappanEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Recipients of aid from Lewis Tappan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. deisenbe (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

For reference, the DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 16. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing hardcoded links to deleted or renamed categoriesEdit


I wonder which tool you use to remove or fix horizontal links (or category redirections) to categories that have been renamed of moved in CfD, which I have sometimes seen you taking care of (an example here). These often remain as left-overs of category moves. I guess it is not obvious to fix them by bot and they often need manual action. However, I could never easily find a list of such horizontal links requiring attention. Is there such a list somewhere? Place Clichy (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: Thanks for asking. I simply go to the old category page (even if deleted) and click "What links here" under Tools in the navigation panel on the left.
In the past I used the "what links here" menu item in WP:POPUPS, but this has never worked on deleted pages, so it's less often usable now that JJMC's bot is generally deleting the old categories.
Sometimes I follow up CFDs closed by other administrators, working from categories listed at WP:CFDW for bot processing. Entries should not be removed from that page before checking backlinks. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Obviously "what links here" gives this information. However I often notice long time afterwards that such links have been left. The best moment to check these incoming links is probably when an admin processes the discussion closure. As occasional nominator or contributor of category discussions, you do not get notified when a discussion is closed and the category processed, and I cannot really follow closely all the discussions I've been involved in. It's pretty easy to spot a category that hasn't been deleted, but there's no easy way to find out if there are still red links when don't already know what you're looking for! Not much chance for peones to find these if the closing user did not clean them all up. I guess there could be a way for a bot to list all incoming links to processed categories ignoring project and alert pages, but someone needs to set it up. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, checking backlinks the responsibility of the administrator who (i) closes the CFD, if s/he chooses not to list it at CFDW; otherwise, (ii) de-lists it from CFDW.
If you belatedly notice cases where redlinks have been left from article/ category/ template /portal namespace or other places worth changing, feel free to leave me a note, and I'll trace who overlooked it and leave them a polite reminder. Or if it was me, I'll apologise and learn to be more careful. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Well they're pretty hard to find if they've been missed at the moment of deletion. A few finds:
Place Clichy (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Aha: speedy deletions don't follow the same process, but should still be checked for backlinks according to WP:DGFA. As you may have noticed, I took up your first example with Liz who processes a lot of {{db-c1}} deletions, and she takes the point on board completely.
The others came up in due course from checking CFDW.
Drafts will always be linked to categories rather than members of them. If they are in user space I take this as an opportunity to review them, blanking some (duplicate old versions of articles) and tagging others for deletion. – Fayenatic London 17:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:English-language websitesEdit

I like your solution to this. Do you think we could extend the principle - only categorising by language where the language is not indigenous, or not what you would expect? Rathfelder (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

In principle, yes, I think the same should apply to e.g. Arabic, Chinese, Spanish media etc.
However, we should probably first try to propagate this approach across Category:English-language works and Category:English-language media.
I have a nagging suspicion that a few years ago there was a reasoned consensus against the principle for one specific medium... Ah, this was it: albums, deleted rather than purged, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_13#English-language_albums. At any rate, it was not kept, so there's no precedent against the principle. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks for category proposalEdit

thanks for your important proposals on reinstating "categories by parameter." how do we get other editors to comment there in support? your proposal and your ideas seem very important!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Thank you for your support, which may be enough. I have left a note at WT:Contents. – Fayenatic London 08:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RfA Question 13Edit

Hi Fayenatic london! Thank you for your question on my RfA.

Just for accountability purposes, I wanted to show that I did add {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} with recall=yes here. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Congratulations to you! Thanks for acting on that straight away.
When you get round to it you may want to state criteria and a process that you would accept for recall. I don't think I spent long on mine; I just looked at a few recent ones, picked one and simplified it. – Fayenatic London 11:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Julius CaesarEdit

Caesar served as a defense lawyer (advocatus)[1] in several criminal cases in his youth, this was common in Rome for patrician men/politicians in general (and he once pulled a king by the beard when the king pissed him off). If this info is lacking from any of the Caesar articles thats unfortunate and odd. Also, Caesar was never Emperor, he was Dictator.★Trekker (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Lovano, Michael (2014). All Things Julius Caesar: An Encyclopedia of Caesar's World and Legacy. ABC-CLIO. p. 455. ISBN 9781440804212.
The book cited does state that it was an important steping stone for his career, I'm sure if we dug a little deeper we'd find a lot more said about it.★Trekker (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
But there is no article about that book in Category:Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar. It is not a useful category for people interested in category:Cultural depictions of lawyers. – Fayenatic London 23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The book not having an article has nothing to do with anything, it's just a citation to back up my claim, and if there was a an article about the book it would be included on Category:Works about Julius Caesar, because it's non-fiction. As far as there being depictions of Caesar's law career in novels and such, there are many, most literature which covers Caesars life goes over his early career. I feel like you're overthinking this becuase you didn't know this part of Caesar's life and don't find it to be important becuase of that. Most people who are included in the Category:Cultural depictions of lawyers are not going to have their lawyer career show up in every single depiction.★Trekker (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
For example, Cultural depictions of Cicero‎, Cultural depictions of Owain Glyndŵr‎, Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln‎, Cultural depictions of Nelson Mandela‎.★Trekker (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
How about we just add Category:Depictions of Julius Caesar in literature to the lawyers category? I bet there is nothing significant in any of the other media categories. – Fayenatic London 23:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Fayenatic london".