User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive07

Please click the "new section" tab above to add a new message below. If you are a registered user and I left a message on your talk page, please reply there to keep the conversation together. If I fail to respond within a few days, please poke me on this page. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony Anthony (evangelist) restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You actually seconded the PROD, but it seems fair to notify you, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. As the anon editor requesting undeletion stated "there are a number of sources to verify the claims" I will wait a while to see if they add them. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Balletdecade

There's an error message on {{Balletdecade}}. This is not my area of expertise. Can you help? — Robert Greer (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the output looks frightful on the template page, it works fine in use, e.g. at Category:2000s ballet premieres. Is it coming up wrong somewhere?

Please have a look at my recent contributions to see how to use this template. I tried to explain it fully with a clear example on the template page. I've just added it to several decade categories which were probably all set up by yourself. If you like, we could add the Portal and the {{Cat main}} into the template as well, so that the template would be the only line needed on the category pages. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to know it was a false alarm! I'm familiar with the use of templates — and the coding of very simple ones. Happy New Year! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding tracklist translations

There are already rules. Except, the issue is actually following them. A translation column to the tracklist template isn't a necessity in understanding the overall tracklist. Unless the CD was released in both english and foreign language, than yes we would put the english first, than the original japanese in the notes. But as of now, the current articles you are focused on lack notability. ANd will need to look for more sources relating to chinese albums. I myself am not familiar with chinese enough to be of any help in that area.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you are not going to help in the way you said you would? Oh well. Thanks for replying. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I will help to see if i can get the foreign characters over the romanization of them in the tracklist. but that's hard to enforce when WP:COMMONNAME dictates using the romanization. remember, i don't agree with every proposal you've mentioned.Lucia Black (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 56#Translations into English of album and song titles, you agreed that this was better, with the official language first followed by English in the notes (and kanji in the Extra column); but above, you now say the opposite! You leave me very confused about what you do and don't agree with. If kanji is put in the notes, it is too small. I have now gone ahead and changed the advice at Template:Track listing myself. – Fayenatic (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. I agreed to the chinese being in small letters looked wrong. However my point still stands against translations in tracklist. The note parameter is to add more to the title. The extra column for the actual spelling seems to confuse.Lucia Black (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your point did not stand; you held that as your opinion, but you could not demonstrate any policy reason for it, whereas I did. If you want to take it further please do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Foreign language in track listings; there is little point in us repeating our views to each other here. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

hi

hi,i no know you but,you can help me with an article plis,thank,Carliitaeliza (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

if,is true,i no believe that all the people know,help me plis Carliitaeliza (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No understand your message,plis repeat the message thankCarliitaeliza (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Stoke Newington School – Media Arts & Science College

I desire expand the article,ok i have photos of uniform of school,of boys upload to commons, and after to article Stoke Newington School – Media Arts & Science College ok ,no have photos in the article,help me with the article?,bye thank Carliitaeliza (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You may notice that I have improved the article already. Photos of buildings would be more normal than photos of people. Before you upload them, do you have permission from the people in the photos to upload the images? – Fayenatic (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

no need permission,Carliitaeliza (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In the photos i no them see the face,no have face,have bodys with uniforms,no need permission my photos Carliitaeliza (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey is my photo,is of mi cousin live in london and no is lie,he allow me,bye Carliitaeliza (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You said no face, then you posted a photo showing the face. In any case the image File:Stoke newington,school.jpg is a poor-quality photo (unclear, crooked), that adds no information of any value to the encyclopedia -- although uniforms and buildings are visible in it, it does not clearly show either of them. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

hey the photo is good,no have things evils in the photo,also you help me with the photo Carliitaeliza (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Kayanja

This is concerning the deletion. Paragraph i deleted though restored now which still makes no difference cause it is invalidated somewhere in the article as false rumours. I think that if we are going to write such an article it should be based on fact and truth not bias and that particular potion is influenced by media bias for 'juicy rumours' which are untrue! ---- michaelthyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelthyn (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Production babies

The DYK project (nominate) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it did: 6,097 for production babies plus 97 for production baby. I don't know why DYKSTATS lists it with 6,815, though. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

FYI, edits like this are usually not necessary, per WP:NOTBROKEN. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if the redirect remains unchanged. I am going to disambiguate cut (filmmaking) when I have changed the current incoming links. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Newest Reply

Hello. You have a new message at GoingBatty's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Serpent

No objection.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 09:02, 28 January 2012

Christian Concern

Extended content

Your wholesale reversion of several changes which I made for various reasons, each explained in an edit summary, needs discussion at the article talk page. I have reverted it wholesale in turn because at least part of your reversion re-introduces material coverd by WP:BLP. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Additional: please also see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Christian_Concern. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Don't bluster about sock puppet investigations, either launch one or drop the innuendo. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Fair enough. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cusop Dingle should clear the air of that one. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I shall expect an apology afterwards. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC) You bully other editors to be direct with accusations, and if we rise to it you then complain about it loudly. It doesn't win you any friends. (e.g. User talk:Obscurasky#Christian Concern.) Look. You made a couple of mistakes. You've graciously conceded that the article has been improved, but have maintained your denial of any ulterior motive and reacted angrily to criticism of your edit summaries. You've attempted to defend yourself by pasting increasingly large chunks of policy pages and claiming to be following them, without demonstrating that you understand them. Nor have you acknowledged that you understood why multiple editors concluded from your edits that you were pursuing a POV. Instead of all this, why not just acknowledge that you made a mistake, and have learned from it? You would gain more respect and trust that way. It appears that participating at the NPOV Noticeboard is important to you. That's one reason why I'm not going to embarrass you by posting this on your own user talk page. Maybe that decision is worth something to you. However, if you've had any more arguments like this, I would advise you to take a break from that project. Best wishes, – Fayenatic (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC) If this is supposed to be an olive branch, it's a pretty odd one, given that you take the opportunity to repeat your false and unfounded allegations yet again. "bully" = challenge. You used your meritless SPI to waste my time and have yet another venue to repeat your false and unfounded allegations "made a couple of mistakes" -- no evidence of course "graciously conceded" -- sarcasm I suppose, odd in an olive branch "maintained your denial of any ulterior motive" -- because I have none "reacted angrily to criticism of your edit summaries" -- no, reacted firmly to unfounded attacks on my personal integrity "attempted to defend yourself" -- successfully "without demonstrating that you understand them" -- insult "participating at the NPOV Noticeboard is important to you" -- the integrity and accuracy of the encyclopedia is important "embarrass you by posting this on your own user talk page" -- why should I care about that, except that on my own talk page I could have saved time by deleting it? And so on and so on. You have repeated your false and unsupported allegations, and I have rebutted them, several times in at least three venues. Stop now. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC) You have denied them at length without answering the specific points or disproving anything. It's a long time since I met another editor who was quite so adept at giving and taking offence. Thank you for your time. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) For the record, the above editor has now explained his reason for citing WP:BLP and we have both moved on to a more constructive editing relationship. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, I apologised for my conduct, and stated on the relevant pages that no suspicion remained against Cusop Dingle. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC) And you apologized graciously, eating all of the responsibility for the situation, with sincerity. I want to thank you for that. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks

Sorry: cannot help. They appear to have been added to the category page as text. I wonder if the links do not exist in the other wikis. Alternatively, perhaps there is something in the WP software preventing interwiki links on categoriy pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

Here it is. Assuming you still want in the club, fill it out and let me know when you're done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• So I started the clock on your nomination here... and then I noticed Jc37 has more questions for you. So please answer those if you feel like doing so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And look, there's even more questions for you to answer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

sure, take your time with them. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ping at Mike Selinker's talk page : ) - jc37 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ping

at my talk...Good luck on your RfA btw. I though I had seen that sig somewhere recently. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator

The admins' T-shirt.

I've closed your RfA as successful. The Administrators' how-to guide and the New Admins' School might be useful to learn about, and try out the new tools. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Maxim_(talk) 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Congrats. I supported you. Now get to work slacker! Oh and don't screw up or I will report you. No I'm just kidding. ;) You'll be a great admin. This is making me jealous seeing how everybody around me is becoming an admin and the chances of becoming one are zip to zero.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,525,804) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

   Found a t-Shirt. I hope it fits.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,531,849) 20:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Congratulations! I'm pretty sure there's a shirt for you around here somewhere, but I have no idea what the file name is. :P Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
3. I would like to congratulate you on your promotion. Remember three things: patience, tolerance, and AGF. If you have these three, then I assure you'll be able use the administrator tools responsibly. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Congrats. Now get to work! There's a lovely minefield on February 3 that I'm sure you'd love to start with.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Congratulations. I think you'll do a good job. But if you don't, people will tell you about it, and I think you deal well with mistakes. Good luck. Pseudofusulina (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Well, waddaya know. Amazing who they'll give a mop to : ) jc37 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Congratulations and best wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Congratulations! Tell me when you do your first block... (don't try it on yourself) Wifione ^Message 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
9. great job. I am sure you will do well. If you need any help or support feel free to ask me. Remember: don't delete the main page --Guerillero | My Talk 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Congratualations! I know you'll be a top-drawer sysop!--Hokeman (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Given that it's Saturday night, domestic politics currently have priority, but I will get round to thanking everybody who supported my nomination. (Probably Monday.) Meanwhile here's my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Congratulations Fayenatic! Just learned that you joined the mop and bucket brigade! You and I worked together at the Anthroponomy wikiproject in 2007 and you were so nice to me, then a newbie, spending time on my first "project" work. I just know you'll do fine in your new role. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Well done - enjoy the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Belated congratulations on your RfA. I didn't note it or else would have put in a word of support. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Good GIF

A tag has been placed on Template:Good GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion took place at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Good GIF (closed as speedy delete):

This template gives horrible advice, giving an invalid reason why these images should be kept in GIF format instead of having them easily converted to PNG. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it comes across as horrible. I created it as discussed here with Sfan00_IMG who seems to be a prolific expert on images. The point is that some GIFs could be fairly easy be re-created from scratch (geometric shapes + letters from standard fonts), so let's go ahead and tag those for replacement with efficient storage formats, but some other websites use GIF originals for complex designs. Template:Good GIF only intended for the latter image files, uploaded here under fair use provisions, e.g. school logos; the point is to discourage editors from tagging them inappropriately. What did I get wrong, please? – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, these images can easily be converted to PNG without any loss of quality. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 00:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind my work being summarily deleted if it was wrong, but let's get the documentation consistent. You say GIFs can easily be converted to PNG, but Template:Should be PNG explicitly tells us not to: Please do not convert this image directly to .PNG! This image has already lost its quality; conversion will not restore it. – Fayenatic L (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That only applies if the image was in JPEG format, which uses lossy compression. GIF is a lossless format, and doesn't provide any benefits over PNG other than support for animation. A PNG file will generally be smaller in size than a GIF file with the same amount of colors. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good, I see you have already edited the template as I would have suggested next. Next, the template documentation: it currently says that this template should be used for GIFs that have lost colour depth, but not for size reduction. For GIFs downloaded directly from websites, which have therefore not lost colour depth, is this the wrong template? (e.g.File:YesAsia logo.gif.) Should Template:Bad GIF be used instead? Or is the documentation on "Should be PNG" unnecessarily prescriptive? – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that Template:Bad GIF would be preferrable. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Achowat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well started :)

• Well started. Just a small note so you can make quick changes in your future blocks. RedTornado's earlier warnings were dated. Yet, your block is good because till now, almost all contributions have been vandalism or fun edits. What I mean to say is that if the past warnings are old (and not very recent, as in the last couple of days or so), you should check all the contributions per se. But I'm sure you're already doing that so this is no sweat. What you should also do is to enable autoblock in the case of vandalism only accounts. Yes, you've stopped RedTornado's account creation but you've disabled the autoblock. In case the user already had a few sock accounts, then by enabling autoblock, even those will be blocked in case he tries to use them from his current ip address(es). Disabling autoblocks (and allowing account creation) should be done in the case of, say, soft blocks; for example, a new user who has accidentally and without realizing, named his account after a company may find his user name soft blocked with a message that he can re-register with any other name that is valid as per UPOL. Also remember, wrong blocking is the easiest way to lose the admin flag. So ask at ANI for a peer review the moment you feel you've done a borderline block. That'll take the heat away from you per se. Write back for any assistance :) See you around. Wifione ^Message 03:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. Yes, I did check the earlier warnings and the complete contrib history. I erred on the side of safety in my first block, but will use autoblock from now on. I see that Wikipedia:New admin school/Blocking does appear to have been kept up to date, and does tell me to do that.

In contrast, Wikipedia:New admin school/Viewing deleted pages seems to need a thorough rewrite for the current version of MediaWiki. I would be willing to do it myself, but is this something that I should refer to an experienced hand, & if so who/where? The last two editors who changed the page are still active, so I could start with one of them... – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just be bold and do it yourself. Write to me if you get stuck. Wifione ^Message 03:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song)

Congrats on your adminship as well. My take on this is that a quote of 4-lines would be fair use. The quote is small compared to the total length so there's no problem there. If it is used to illustrate the "imperfect" English then I think it is fair use just based on that. It also adds some context to the article making an even stronger case for fair use. Personally I would be a bit uncertain just using it for context, and would probably err on not, but if there is also commentary on the English used then I definitely don't think there's any problem claiming fair use. Dpmuk (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wibble

Pigott Street Housing, GLC

Things come to those who wait.... Gordo (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category talk:Church buildings

An RfC there or probably better in Wikipedia talk:Categorization would be a reasonable next move. The problem may be in how to word a neutral request. I suppose if this comes down to simply the basic naming policy of being not ambiguous is at issue as well as the requirement that all members be appropriate for inclusion in all parents could be the neutral kicking off point. The question would them be, is there a reason to deviate here? But then some may consider that a stacked deck against keeping the current names. So if you can come up with wording that lays out the long history of past decisions, not restricted to this one area, and how the current exceptions actually line up with the guidelines and decisions, that could be neutral enough. You may also want to read WP:SUBCAT before doing anything to help formulate the appropriate wording about what is needed in category contents to be able to have valid parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Some preliminary thoughts:

A. I'm aware that I have missed some of the action. Would you mind pointing to me to some of the most relevant precedents?

B. The "former church buildings" seems to be a specially awkward case. On the other hand, if we arrive at a fully satisfactory structure for those, it may illuminate the best way to go ahead with the rest. Should we separately categorise demolished church buildings, currently unused church buildings, and church buildings converted to other uses?

C. When we start a public discussion, it would probably be useful to set out the apparent options, including:

1. do nothing, but this would leave inconsistency within Category:Church buildings in the United States by state and within Category:Church buildings by country
2. seek consensus to press on with the shift to "church buildings", including a consensus on whether to stop and leave the name "churches" below a certain geographical level
3. seek consensus on naming for a new parallel category hierarchy for organizations
4. revert to "churches", categorise them within Christian organizations as well as buildings, and clarify the (overlapping) purpose. Create a category definition template stating that these categories are only for articles on Church buildings and Local churches, so articles on other subjects should be categorised elsewhere e.g. denominations or Christian organizations.

Here on my talk page, I may as well declare my own view. I have been quietly supportive here and there on the "church buildings" hierarchy work, even though I didn't think it was great, because that had consensus support, but am now reconsidering. As most articles on churches, with possibly a few exceptions, are both about the Church (building) and about the Local church, I believe the parenthetical part of WP:SUBCAT allows the location-based sub-cats to be categorised within both buildings and organizations: When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. I'm therefore currently leaning towards (4) above; but open to persuasion. – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on board with option 4 as well. We can't have two formats, and the "church buildings" one failed the test.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at SD5's talk page.
Message added 20:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SD5 20:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Anya

Ach, nay. I hate MOS:DAB, let alone the sub-conventions for naming things. Please revert my work to a more acceptable version, and accept my apologies! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

European Peacebuilding Liaison Office, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Chicago seven category

Hi - can I ask why you've removed people who are associated with the Chicago Seven trial from that category? I don't see any indication that it should be reserved only for the defendants - surely the judge, attorneys, and prominent witnesses are appropriate. Was this discussed somewhere? Thanks - categories are a very useful means of learning about connections between articles, and limiting this one to just the defendants is not particularly useful in my view. Tvoz/talk 01:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it was because they did not belong as members of the head categories Category:American anti–Vietnam War activists or Category:Enumerated defendants. One solution would have been to make a new sub-category for "Chicago Seven defendants" and keep the existing category for other pages associated with the event/affair. However, in most cases the Chicago Seven involvement was not a defining attribute of the other subjects, and therefore they should not be categorised by it. I decided that it was a better solution to expand Template:Chicago Seven navbox as a substitute aid to navigation – perhaps you missed that I had done this. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I did miss that navbox. I'm one of the lead editors on Ochs and I don't see it there - you're right of course that he and the others don't belong in an enumerated defendants category, but certainly is properly in the "anti-Vietnam War activists" category and his Chicago '68 experiences and Chicago Seven testimony were rather significant in his life, which is why we put him in that cat originally, not intending to suggest he was a defendant though. . I personally prefer using a category for these types of things because the navbox is more intrusive into the article, making more of a statement than we might intend, whereas the category is just another way of introducing readers to connections, but I understand your point about enumerated defendants. I'll think about adding the navbox. Thanks - nice to meet you, and good luck in your adminship - I'll probably call on you sometime! Tvoz/talk 15:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers – feel free! We should be able to make the template collapsible if that would help. Let me know if you need me to figure out how to do that. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Old (X)" CfDs

Hi there, FL. I hope you have enjoyed using the tools so far. I'm writing because there's been an interesting development in the long series of nominations by BrownHairedGirl to rename "Old (X)" categories to "People educated at (X)"/"Alumni of (X)"/"(X) alumni." A user has suggested that the admin who'd been closing the nominations is biased, and that admin has, perhaps wisely, backed away. I don't know your opinions on that type of change, since I don't think you've ever ventured into this type of discussion. If so, would you consider reading up on the discussions and begin closing them? There's a summary of the ones done so far at User:BrownHairedGirl/Old_Fooian_categs_renamed, and the unclosed ones begin on March 2. There's also a "bright line" discussion on User talk:Peterkingiron that may illuminate where certain editors lie on the spectrum of possibilities (I am all the way to the right). Let me know if this is something you'd like to do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, yes, having the tools has been good so far! I've done more than I expected in other fields: blocking a few users for username COI, speedy deletions (including the second-longest-lasting hoax page), even undeleting images. I didn't enjoy my first CfD closure; though. I was satisfied with my conclusion, but it put a stop in the way of the "churches" renaming project, and I've been meaning to get round to a RfC or similar to seek consensus for where that should go next. (See above.) However, I felt that it was going to require a fair whack of time, and haven't yet brought myself round to do it. For all I know I am already missing it happening somewhere or other.

That's the main reason why it was only in the last few days that I got back to CfD at all. BTW, I closed as speedy a C2C rename on the day it was added on the full daily CfD log; even though that case was indisputable, should I have left it for two days?

As for the Old What-nots, I've never cared which way they go, so I've only voted on one small batch that was easily renamed for consistency. Thanks for pointing out the opportunity, but I don't expect to have time in the next few days to read the background for a long job. So I'll decline for now, without prejudice to doing it after all if it is still there at the end of the week! – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. User:Jc37 seems to have taken up the slack. FYI, you don't have to use the words "without prejudice" to apply to your own actions. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Electricians

I think you grossly misinterpreted the discussion, and the closure was wrong-headed.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Electricians. 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. Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I misrepresented the majority view from the Israeli electricians CFD when I nominated Electricians by nationality, but after reading WT:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation, I now agree that both closures were wrong, and have supported the reversal proposed at DRV. – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Scorpion (MK) page

Is wikipedia a place for users to put up pictures of fans from consplay on character pages?[1]-99.168.74.138 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. I found a guideline for this at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. I didn't notice anything that would rule out the use of that image, so it's a matter of judgment. IMHO the photo is not ideal because (i) it is an unofficial depiction of the subject, (ii) the background is not very good (the casual pose of people in the distance detracts from the aggressive stance of the character), (iii) the caption is suspect as it refers to the appearance in MK2011 but the photo was taken in 2010. In favour of keeping it: (i) the article does not have too many images already, (ii) it does not have another image with that 2011 costume, (iii) the costume appears to be a reasonably well made, (iv) the photo shows the costume clearly and (v) it is not an obvious case of an editor including a photo of themselves (WP:COI) or the face of a random person. It would be better to replace it with a photo from official media, uploaded under "fair use" rules. However, until there is one available, I'm not bothered either way about using that particular photo. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Abdulla Nass

Thanks for the help with the [Abdulla Ahmed Nass] article and the advise you left me [HERE]. I have finished cleaning up the links so that it avoids link rot. I also removed the tag for link rot. I am at a roadblock with the name list and unsure what to do. The names are notable but I do not want to create all of the different articles fore each. I will have to let things "melt my brain" over the next couple of days before I make a decision. --Morning277 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with Nass for for fixing the talk page here. I was trying to make it look more professional but got bored before looking up how to do with. Thanks for adding the bot. You are a truly worthy of Wikipedian. --Morning277 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

– Fayenatic L (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

HELP!!

Thanks for the help with Nass. I have obtained the permission email from the originator and will forward it shortly to receive the file number. Thanks for your help. I am trying to move an article to the main space from "articles for creation" but have not been able to do so. I have never had a problem with this is the past and hoping you can help. Here is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Mouawad --Morning277 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disregard. I figured it out. Thanks again. Here is the full article Mouawad. --Morning277 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian Union (students)

So far as I remember, most, if not all, of the groups that I tagged as NRMs I tagged because they were included in one or more encyclopedias or other reference sources relating to NRMs, and I tagged them, basically, in the hope of getting together lists of such reference works for religion projects, which would help in developing the artcles. Admittedly, that was some time ago, and I don't think I still have the I was working on. But, at least at this time, I cannot directly confirm that they are an NRM, without that list. I guess the fairest thing to do would be to leave the decision up to you. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories for history of Manchuria in film, etc.

Hi,

I see that you created Category:History of Manchuria on film, Category:History of Manchuria on novels and Category:Jurchen history on novels. In all three cases, the word "on" should be "in". I could nominate these at WP:CFD for speedy renaming. However, as there are so few members in these categories, it would be easier if you would set up replacement categories yourself, and tag the old ones with {{db-author}}. Let me know if you would like any help. – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You can do whatever you think it is necessary. I'm kinda busy this weekends.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you also see if there's any errors on Category:History of China on novels that needs to be fixed? Thanks--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, I spotted that, but there are more members, so I thought I'd take it to CFD... but then I was going to stand back and take a wider look around first, in case that sparked off a wider discussion. There are some similar categories that overlap – what's the difference between that and its parent, Category:Chinese historical novels? – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just do whatever you think it is necessary. Again, thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's done.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

On further examination, that parent is part of "Chinese novels" i.e. published in China rather than set in China. There is obviously a strong overlap, especially in the case of historical novels, but separate categories may be needed... – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You can do whatever you think it is necessary.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well

I'll try and do that. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry for de-populating the fictional aquatic creatures category, I believe my original intention was to rename it but regardless I realise I should not have done this now. I'm currently going through the list of categories that currently have the template I created to check if I inadvertently added or removed a category but I'm not sure how to check if I removed a cetogory? Again, I was only trying to help out, I didn't realise the other template actually included some categories. Please understand I didn't mean to mess anything up and I'm really beating myself up over it at the moment. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and start working on that right now. =] Thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i see what you mean. I removed them from the category. Theres nothing about fictional fish specifically that makes them "super healers" On a separate note, take a look at Category:Fictional stoats and delete it if you think it should be. I might be wrong but fictional stoats belongs to the weasels category... so one either all stoats are weasels or all weasels are stoats... either way we should probably do something. Stoats only has 1 or 2 things in it though, so might be better to just delete it. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hah, that's cute! Anyway, I've worked on the categories until I got to foxes, I'll work more on them in a few days (I'm currently on leave from work for a little bit). Thanks again! Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, well I had done that originally to be more like the others (which only had one parent category: Reptilians etc) and because there's not so many that it would be disruptive. Also, like you said, it might help people in navigation by searching for the common name under mammals. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories nominated for speedy deletion

I want to inform you that Category:1851 in fiction and a number of similar categories which you may or may not have created similarly are up for speedy deletion. The reason I'm bringing this to your attention is that Category:1849 in fiction is up for (regular) deletion (see discussion) and the situation regarding these others where brought up there. My concern is that they may have been emptied out of order, but I'm unsure how to go about checking this as the user who have speedied them has not done so. __meco (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up – much appreciated. As it turns out, this is not a problem; I have explained it at CFD April 8. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Recall

In your RFA, you commented that you would be open to recall, and you also noted that in a response to an oppose. This is not an attempt to recall you. Under what circumstances would you be willing to give up the bit? Apologies if you already defined procedure, I tried by could not find it. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I needed to pick or set my own detailed approach. I have pasted the simple version into User:Fayenatic london/Recall. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I'm Fantom261092 and I want to thank you for the message that you had posted on my talk page. Greetings from Manzanillo, Mexico.

Fantom261092 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Block

Hello,i´m the This user i´m trying to request that remove the protection to my talk page,i want back to edit on the english Wikipedia, for request my unblock,that i need much, want have a new chance,again.Someone said me:”you never back”,but i have faith that somebody unblock me,please help to the unblock me,a kiss 201.220.233.206 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

English:By evading your block, you just secured the fact that you are not going to be unblocked.

Spanish: Al evadir su bloque, sólo asegura el hecho de que no van a ser desbloqueados—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Give me a time say me:you can wait six months? and you can back late,have good wishes please give a new chance,i can wait 6 months but late unblock me,:D 201.220.233.205 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Carliitaeliza, you would need to appeal your block on Spanish Wikipedia first. There is no point appealing here first. Your English is not good enough for you to contribute here rather than there.

After your devious behaviour earlier, do not expect any sympathy from me. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fayenatic, this user is globally blocked from editing. Their only hope is WP:CLEANSTART.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing CfD discussion

Would you explain your edit, please?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess it looks like an edit conflict as the timestamps are identical.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a good explanation! Thanks! :)

If this were a Star Trek episode, any number of anomalies could have happened instead! This was relatively lucky! :D

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was just an edit conflict. I thought I had three of them in succession doing that edit, which does not appear to make sense as there was only one edit by Peter and one by yourself. Edit conflicts seem to be working differently at the moment compared to past experiences. Sorry if I misunderstood and overrode a warning in relation to your comment. – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I am happy that I am still in a universe where some people don't have beards.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If this were a Star Trek episode, I'm pretty sure it was Fayenatic London who pushed an edit through sometime in the future which accidental got sent through a temporal distortion which threw it into the past and got placed on top of your edit. :P—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion edit

I fixed a link you made to a category within a discussion. I added the initial : so it would be read in the running text. The previous form totally confused me. I hope you do not mind this change, I am pretty sure it makes the statement the way you intended it to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops - thanks very much. I admit that I have made one or two spelling corrections to your edits at CFD recently in order to correct links, without even letting you know; I hope you don't mind either. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I greatly appreciate it. Having working links is generally a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Lion Awakes

The article The Lion Awakes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFF#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. According to the production company's own web page, the prospective film has not been cast, no director has been chosen, and financing is yet to be obtained. It's basically just an idea at this point.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have deleted it myself for the time being. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Need help on Dan dan you qing

I have sources written in Chinese about the 1983 Teresa Teng album:

• http://gb.cri.cn/3601/2005/07/01/882@605057.htm
• http://gb.cri.cn/27564/2010/05/08/108s2843996_4.htm
• http://gb.cri.cn/9223/2007/06/25/1266@1649056.htm
• http://www.yn.xinhuanet.com/ent/2008-08/04/content_14015572_2.htm
• http://www.chinanews.com/yl/2012/03-02/3714877.shtml
• http://www.cnr.cn/wyzs/zdtj/201003/t20100322_506184373.html
• http://gb.cri.cn/3601/2004/07/26/342@244266.htm
• http://gb.cri.cn/3601/2004/08/10/342@260819.htm
• http://gb.cri.cn/3601/2004/08/02/342@252759.htm

To search, use either "邓丽君" 淡淡幽情 or "鄧麗君" 淡淡幽情. --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. When you recently edited Jason (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyacinth (given name) (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality and religion category

Someone should really close this nomination. Are you up for it?--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, somebody else had beaten me to it before I got this message. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Healthcare infrastructure

Are you sure of this close as merge? Infrastructure and organizations are very different animals and don't belong in one category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was satisfied that there was consensus, in that the main objections to merger had been given respectable counter-arguments.

Also, while infrastructure and organizations are conceptually different, the category contents were indistinguishable in practice. I was not convinced by the suggestion that "policy" falls within "infrastructure". As for "software", I looked for computing within the top level category:infrastructure and found none, so I added some myself. Nevertheless, this did not provide a reason to save the nominated category.

I would have no objection to re-creation of the category if it can be shown to have a clear purpose, e.g. straddling healthcare computing, transportation, buildings and organizations. If you do so, please link to this discussion on the talk page. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Li Lili'

Hi. The article 'Li Lili' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.womenofchina.cn/Profiles/Artists/11815.jsp

• You added this in April 2010.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, little bot, you can carry on telling me about dead links. Actually, I knew about that one already and have been mourning it for some time. Unfortunately I didn't know about webcitation.org when I created that page. What's more, I hadn't realised that it was searchable until you mentioned it. Keep up the good work. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Categories_by_time_period
• Category:Shipwrecks by time period
• Category:16th-century shipwrecks
• Category:18th-century shipwrecks
• Category:Ancient shipwrecks
• Category:Lists of shipwrecks by year

Hi.

I'd like to ask that you strike Category:Shipwrecks by time period from the cfd nom, so that it can be dealt with separately. I think it and several of its subcats should instead be deleted/upmerged. I welcome your thoughts on this. - jc37 00:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the plan? Listify, i.e. keep only the lists by year? – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing really to listify. 2 of the subcats are single member, and really not part of any overarching schema. Ancient is shaky as a diffusion choice (probably should be upmerged) and the lists subcat is already subcatted elsewhere. Which pretty much leaves the parent "shipwrecks by timeperiod/date" as pointless. - jc37 07:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Worth a discussion; "ancient" is a member of various useful head cats, but could be listified if it isn't already. OK, I will withdraw this one.

Hey, it was you that wrote "no" at the top of this page! Please fix this – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nod, and fixed : )

I left other comments in the CfD as well. For example, I know I was in favour of 'era" in the past, but in further investigation, I've been convinced period is the better way to go. For one thing, it appears to be more universally used. - jc37 08:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm open to withdrawing that as well. In case you haven't seen User talk:Mike Selinker#Categories by time period already, please do... – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nod.

As for era vs period. I think that this may be something that needs a case-by-case basis. I'm looking over these cats, and there doesn't seem to be an overall system in naming, and the interweaving of the cats can be dizzying : ) - jc37 08:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jc37. Given my comments above, I could allow those deletions as G7, but not C1. At least I only tagged Category:Shipwrecks of the 18th century as G1 and left it to expire. – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The nice thing about C1, is that it doesn't preclude recreation. - jc37 08:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories by language of India

Following the inconclusive CfD last month, would you mind looking again at Category:Newspapers by language of India, which I have re-purposed more clearly by adding a sub-cat for languages that are primarily published within India? – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks cleaner. (And would seem to deal with several of the concerns in the nom.) - jc37 18:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I built most of it some time ago; just now all I did was a final stage to move the India-only ones into only one of the groupings. Glad you like it. In that case I'll take it further; the next couple of levels up are not as good. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I too agree that it looks cleaner now. Thanks for your efforts. Shyamsunder (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s

You commented at Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s. I have found sources for most of the articles involved and updated them. So if you are interested, you may want to read my comments about what I found and see if that impacts your opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-linear editing system‎

Hi, as requested, I'm trying to help with the article Non-linear editing system‎ (which is a mess, especially in the History paragraph :-) ). I'll do it in the next weeks when I'll have free time. As my English is not the best, somebody will have to review my modifications. For the same reason, I did not understand what you meant for the EVS Broadcast Equipment article. Could you explain again ? Many thanks. Cheers, Sergio. --CRJO-CRJO (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your precisions. I've added the Olympics references I found, I think they should help. Please read them when you'll have time and see if you can remove the "verification failed" (no pressure), it's up to you. Let me know if they are other problems. --CRJO-CRJO (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC) my talk page at the French Wikipedia project

Montpellier caps

I don't where you found your capitalisation source. It's certainly not standard French usage -- see the following pages on the Opéra national de Montpellier website for example:

• http://www.opera-orchestre-montpellier.fr/francais/bill_info.html

En raison des travaux effectués à l'Opéra Comédie, la billetterie de l'Opéra et Orchestre national Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon sera située exclusivement au Corum

Par correspondance: Opéra et Orchestre national Montpellier / Le Corum CS 89024

• http://www.opera-orchestre-montpellier.fr/index.html

L’Opéra et l’Orchestre national de Montpellier vont essayer, désormais réunis, ..

• http://www.opera-orchestre-montpellier.fr/francais/rep_lyrique_Rusalka.html

Chœurs de l’Opéra national de Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon

Orchestre national Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon

Can you back your changes out, please? Scarabocchio (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. Uppercase N on National appears in the window title (HTML source includes <title>Opéra et Orchestre National de Montpellier LR</title> ) but I bow to your superior knowledge. Thank you for correcting me. – Fayenatic London (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. (Sorry if I sounded a bit ratty, but when I look at how much work needs to be done on Wikipedia, I can sometimes be .. 'unsympathetic' to minor visual tweaks :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You sounded fine to me! When I was standing for Adminship, I learnt that WP:AGF goes a long way. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of 1 Peter 4:8. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Time period

Hi, where do you think "time period" is needed? The only category that I chose not to shorten to "period", on grounds of taste, was Category:Women writers by historical period. – Fayenatic London (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, how am I doing on Admin'ing at CFD? – Fayenatic London (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, the more I try to research usage of Historical "eras" and "(time) period" the more I find that the terms are utterly subjective (and all too often vague) in usage.

• wikt:age
• wikt:era
• wikt:period

Of the three above, "period" would appear to be the one in the most specific usage.

As for time period, there are some possibilities that come to mind due to secondary meanings of period. (As you note above.) Though I did chuckle when thinking about the possible cat "Criminal sentences by historical period" into: "Sentences by period" : )

As for admin tools and responsibilities, I'll admit I haven't been looking, so with that in mind, I'm not thinking I've seen anything untoward : )

That said, if ever you would like me to look over anything specific or want a WP:3PO, please feel free to drop me a note. - jc37 23:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Philatelists

Nice catch Obviously, both categories are appropriate. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

D Pillai

Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 25#File:Devasahayam Pillai .28book cover.29.jpg. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Healthcare by subdivision of the United States

Hi, I just noticed an incomplete comment "I also looked over" within your close here, which you might want to tidy up. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch : )

Looks like I started writing the sentence one way, and re-phrased it. I'm guessing I didn't backspace enough.

Thanks for the note. - jc37 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nuclear accidents

Hi, If you have time, I'd love to know what you think about the proposed Re-names for Category:Nuclear accidents. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - thanks for asking, it was quite interesting to think about. – Fayenatic London (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together! – Fayenatic London 08:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Michelle (given name)

The stage name section wasn't there cuz I wasn't done editing/tidying up that page yet (excuse me for not doing it quickly) Loginnigol (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Christianity categories, etc.

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

John Carter (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please move Sachin Pandit (I) to Sachin Pandit. Shahu nana (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Carter (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ships by designer

Category:Ships by designer, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Request

• User:Black Falcon
• User:BrownHairedGirl
• User:The Bushranger
• User:Fayenatic london
• User:Good Olfactory
• User:Jc37
• User:Mike Selinker
• User:Timrollpickering
• User:Vegaswikian

Hi. I'm dropping you this note as a request to help.

I just looked at 30 random CfD pages, and based upon that we seem the be the most common closers (those who determine consensus of discussions) at CfD. (If I have overlooked anyone, it is obviously purely an oversight.)

I think we've all been seeing the difficulties that some editors has been having lately concerning some self-asserted bold edits. And how they may be seen by others as disruptive.

I think that at least some of the trouble could be that while most of use are aware of common practice regarding category pages, we really do not have a unified MoS regarding what a category page should look like or include. And so when someone attempts to edit contrary to that understood common practice, it is seen as disruptive.

I'd like to prevent this from happening now or in the future.

So I'm asking you to join in and help edit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages to a point where it reflects consensus and common practice as we understand it. And perhaps finding any new consensus as necessary.

This is obviously not exclusive to only us to discuss (so any lurkers out there would be welcome), I merely thought inviting you all would be a good start : )

(This is not because I think we'll all agree. Honestly, I expect that on some things we'll likely disagree. And that - as I think we all expect - will just help make the results of the discussion better and more useful for everyone, and therefore, more reflective of the greater consensus at Wikipedia.)

I sincerely hope that you will be able to find the time to help out.

Regardless, thank you for your time, and your continued contributions at CfD - jc37 14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Looking forward to contributing when I get round to it. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Category pages

Based on what you have said, there is at this point no real purpose to maintain subpages which just list categories in trees, and it is extremely likely, unfortunately, that such would be outdated rapidly anyway. On that basis, I am leaving you this message here as a clear indication that you have my support to erase/delete any pages of this type that have been created by me as being done with the express consent of the major or sole editor to such pages. I know the termingology is officially at the request of the sole editor, and this isn't really a formal "request" from me, partially because technically it was your suggestion first, before I considered it, but I do think, at this point, that we might well be better off without having such pages which would be impossible to maintain anyway, and I thus request you to review any such pages you see, and, if in your judgment they are basically not productive, to delete them at your discretion. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Schools_in_North_Lanarkshire

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_7#Category:Schools_in_North_Lanarkshire

Closed the discussion. Since you seem to have a clear idea on how to move it forward, thought I'd ask if you would : ) - jc37 23:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done manually, and tidied up the other categories on the articles on the way through. Cheers – Fayenatic London 11:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol I find I do that too ("Well, while I'm here...")

Thanks for taking care of that. - jc37 14:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Because there was more to do, I didn't use WP:HOTCAT, but I've just read up on its advanced features including multiple changes in one edit. Worth a look in case you have not kept up with it. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Procedural problem

Hi Fayenatic: Regarding your recent "restructuring" of your original nomination at the CFD [2], the proper thing for a nominator to do when "restructuring" his original nomination after many comments have been made is to re-start an entirely new discussion. It is unfair to expect that participants in any CFD or AFD etc can adjust their comments when the nominator suddenly creates new parameters and reasoning for his nomination. Please stop the CFD and start a new one based on your "revised" POVs so that everyone can follow your moves and positions that need to be clearly set up at the very beginning and not change as you go along that seems like "moving the goalposts". Please see WP:RELIST, as it applies to categories, as one option. I may even support you then, but right now you are just running around in circles and creating confusion. Thanks in advance. IZAK (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC):

(I was thinking about commenting here earlier, before FL asked for my input.)

I can see both sides of this.

We try to not greatly vary a nom mid discussion, as it may change the appearance of comments by previous commenters (who may be dropping an opinion as they "drive-by"). But on the other hand, modifying a proposal as a discussion is ongoing is rather fairly common practice. The whole point of discussion is to try to come up with what the best outcome is, and at times that is not what was originally nominated.

If FL had just deleted the old nom, and replaced it with the new text, I think the complaint would have had much stronger ground to stand on, but strikeouts happen in discussions all the time. It's easy enough for an admin to check timestamps to figure out which proposal a commenter was referring to.

So I don't see this as a sign of being disruptive, but more a sign of having an open mind.

That said, if it would help assuage your concerns, I have little doubt that FL would add a clarifying comment about the different noms if you feel that that would help.

I hope this helps. - jc37 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take IZAK's post as a complaint, but rather a suggestion for a clean start that is more likely to find consensus.

Anyway, it sounds as if there's no procedural objection to me following IZAK's suggestion, in which case I am very happy to do it. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Jc37: Fayenatic is reading me correctly. In fact my suggestion would actually benefit his goals of creating clarity within the categories in question. His later suggestion is quite good, but how do we go and run after editors who have voted against the initial nomination and now ask them to review the whole discussion and then re-vote on the revised nomination. All of this creates too much confusion. WP:NOTPAPER and a fresh start clears the path for a clear resolution. IZAK (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(Looks around in the hole I seem to have fallen into and wondering why I needed to be here and was this trip really necessary : )

Kidding aside, Sorry if I misunderstood you Izak. In reading your comments, it looked like you were chastising FL. Sounds like you are both on the same page now.

As for starting a new discussion, I commented a touch on that on my talk page. If you can, you can, if you can't, you can't. If you would like any help feel free to let me know, though I'm not sure what else I could do to help.

(In the meantime, as I hopefully think I've crawled out of this hole, I think I'll sit over >>>>>>>>>>> there  : ) - jc37 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings...

I'm slowly making changes to the "Wax Murdaraz" page whenever I get the opportunity. I'm not online often, so please bear with me...Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wise 7 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

UAE categories

Thought I'd let you know that I've closed the discussion here, if you want to doublecheck to ensure things are properly categorised after Cydebot gets done with it. (I'd check myself, but I'm being run off the computer for now!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. I followed up with a speedy nomination on a sub-cat for Abu Dhabi (the other one, for Dubai, was empty when I got to it). – Fayenatic London 06:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Course: Oblivion

Thanks for the flag! Notifying a tech now since I won't be able to resolve this. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)