This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Fayenatic london

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
29 April 2015

Archiving[edit]

I think I archived my talkpage properly, can you take a look? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mishae, it looks to me as if you just deleted some sections. Although they can always be retrieved from the page history, archiving normally means you put them onto another page. There are two methods: copying and pasting, or moving the page. I use the second method, as you can see in the page history here. The main difference is that the talk page history (of actual contributions) is split up between the different archive pages if you use the "move" method, but kept all on one page if you copy and paste. Also, you can get a bot to do archiving for you, using copy and paste. See Help:Archiving a talk page. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Mishae, I see the tweak that I added seems to have worked. Glad to be of help! – Fayenatic London 13:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you liked that video that I showed you?--Mishae (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius[edit]

I saw that an editor had made an attempt to improve an almost non-sensical sentence in Marcus Aurelius, but without succeeding. I went back in the Revision History to October 12, 2009, and found that the first part of the sentence had somehow gotten cut off, so I replaced it. Now the sentence makes sense. I tried to put the link to that particular edit in my edit summary. The information is there, starting with http, but it doesn't look like a link that someone can click on. Can you tell me how to do that? I don't know if you can fix this one, but at least I'll know for the next time. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, a permanent link is in effect an external link rather than an internal link. As far as I know it's not possible to make these clickable in edit summaries. Well done for your detective work, and for including the link in the edit summary anyway.
Happy New Year! – Fayenatic London 13:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and the same to you! CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Quick question[edit]

Happy new year! The quick question is, is there any practical difference between a 'keep' and a 'no consensus' decision? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too!
"Keep" is a consensus which (i) may be a precedent for others, and (ii) discourages re-nomination for a time. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's clear, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:American female rock singer-songwriters[edit]

I strongly feel that a category needs to be there for this. Why do you not want it there? It is not hurting anything, and there is a section for American female pop singer-songwriters; in fact, rock is one of America's most popular genres. Thebuck093 (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thebuck093: it's not my choice but the consensus of recent discussions, which was to delete this and similar categories, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_11#Category:American_pop_singer-songwriters_and_Category:American_rock_singer-songwriters, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_23#Category:American_female_rock_singer-songwriters and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_8#Singer-songwriter_categories. Indeed, a link to one of those comes up when you click on the category name. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ted Jensen[edit]

Good morning, I have been working on Ted Jensen's wiki page and I see that you deleted family info on there. What was written were facts and I believe it was you who found Carl's name in the Yale journal several months ago and cited it, but now you've taken it down. I did a little more research and found Ted's mother's obituary stating that Carl was her husband, and Ted was her son, and a description of her education etc. and how she and his father met, so if this is cited, can the paragraph I wrote be put back up there? It doesn't read very well now and I think it's important for generations to come to know where some of these pioneers came from and briefly how their love of music evolved. This is Ted's mother's obit. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/nhregister/obituary.aspx?pid=165917127. I used to work for Phil Ramone and have been involved in the music industry since the early 80's and plan on writing more bios on the folks behind the scenes who contributed greatly to the music and technology we hear today who have not yet been written about on Wikipedia. I honestly would appreciate any help you can give me. Thank you Dmileson (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I see that I stated in my edit summary,[1] Remove unsourced family info. The citations that were given within that para do not provide evidence that the stated info is connected to Ted Jensen. I haven't looked at the new source but if it makes the connection, your proposal sounds fine.
The normal process for expanding Wikipedia is to work from published reliable sources. If you are instead working from personal knowledge, it is important that you only put in information that is backed up by such sources, and state them. I hope this helps.
I'm going to have less time for checking stuff here in future, but it sounds as if you're getting the hang of contributing well. Keep it up! – Fayenatic London 08:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Fayenatic london! One of my favorite places, by the way! :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmileson (talkcontribs) 04:02, 1 February 2015‎

You're very welcome! – Fayenatic London 13:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Football[edit]

Did you watched soccer match tonight? I did. Just curious if you are into it, like most Brits are.:)--Mishae (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not me, that's one thing I never got into! – Fayenatic London 13:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging Laila with Laila Bagge Wahlgren[edit]

Laila and Laila Bagge Wahlgren is the same person: Laila_(musician) Laila_Bagge_Wahlgren

I wonder if you can help me merge those two articles, by moving Laila to Laila Bagge Wahlgren. There is some additional info on her Swedish wiki page. Also on this Swedish page [2] This type of work, I'm not so good at. 193.12.5.35 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Creedswede

Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for spotting this and acting on it! I have not added anything new from the source that you suggested. – Fayenatic London 15:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Companies_of_the_United_States_with_untaxed_profits[edit]

Hi Fayenatic london, I see you were the closing admin for Category:Companies_of_the_United_States_with_untaxed_profits. I believe the parent categories of this deleted categoy were not added to the articles that were its children. Am I correct? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right, as the consensus was to delete the category rather than to merge it. – Fayenatic London 16:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A Very Sensitive Question[edit]

If you don't read the Billboard Book and change the official charts, I will sue you and your friends for fraud and libel of music charts of Freddie Aguilar for $ 2 Million Dollars!!!!!!!!! My Father Is A Very Well-Known Attorney In The Philippines so, be prepared!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JomartheGreat (talkcontribs) 00:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, JomartheGreat? Something in the page history at Anak? I can't see what I've changed there that you would object to.
Please read WP:No legal threats. If you want to discuss something, be specific about what you think should be changed, and ask nicely. – Fayenatic London 09:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

CfD closes[edit]

Working on closing cfd discussons to clear the back log today. - jc37 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's music to my ears. I don't have as much time for this as before. Thanks for the ping; I have finished parenting and populating the new postal infrastructure cats. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of: Category:Postal infrastructure in the United Kingdom, it looks like cydebot doesn't know cat pages can be moved now? - jc37 23:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. Look at CydeWeys' user talk history, and you'll see it has been requested, with majority support. – Fayenatic London 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Religious leaders, religious workers[edit]

If you wish, please join this discussion. Very surprisingly to me, nobody reacted so far. I've meanwhile also posted it on the Religion project. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this nomination to my attention. I think you could simply have created a new parent category. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your close[edit]

Hi. I don't think your close on the Jewish Olympics (the Maccabiah Games bronze medalists) here was proper. At the very least conversation should be extended. As to the ! votes on the nom, they were 1 in favor of the nom and 1 against; not a consensus to delete. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, the !votes were 3:1 which indicated consensus to me.
For: SFB, Marcocapelle and Johnpacklambert. Against: Epeefleche.
There was also the comment from the anon editor, but they did not come back with a formal "oppose".
As for your comment that it should be extended, it had been open for over six weeks. That's plenty. Until your vote last week, the voting was 3:0.
Seeing that there was so little at stake, with only one page to be re-categorised, I went ahead and closed it as having consensus.
Ah. I see that I implemented the result incorrectly, by upmerging the bronze medalist to "Medalists" instead of removing the category from his page per the consensus. Well, I'll leave it there, otherwise I can't see the point of keeping both the "medalists" and "gold medalists" category. Is this any consolation? – Fayenatic London 22:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Errata. I was (mis)-reading the !votes, in the edit portion where I got lost. As to the !votes, the IP indicated a view. I don't think it is necessary for the formatting to include the word Keep, or for him to come back and re-format his view. Also, Marco - who you counted - didn't express a rationale. And the rationale expressed by nom is questionable by wp standards, which was pointed out. As to the six weeks, you are correct ... but I still question whether there was a consensus here. Given the IP !vote, the zero-rationale Marco !vote, and the substance of the comments (seriously ... the nom is comparing the third-largest international sport events in the world, sanctioned by the US Olympic Committee,[3] with 8,500 participants from 70 countries, to his local event ... there is no requirement that performance be at level x in a sport event ... we would reflect a medal winner at the national sport event of the smallest nation, for example, and this is much larger with much more RS coverage). Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I have reopened it, solely because JPL was not clear on his reason for considering it non-defining: notability of the event, or notability of winning bronze. @Johnpacklambert: please clarify. I have now voted instead of closing, to merge rather than delete. – Fayenatic London 06:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you perhaps ping the IP as well, if you really question whether the IP has voiced a view that can be counted? Thanks for reconsidering. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I left a message on their talk page. @Marcocapelle: please also clarify your rationale at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 30#Category:Maccabiah Games bronze medalists. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging, I agree with Epeefleche that my vote initially didn't count by lack of rationale and also agree that any objections that people make without formally voting should be taken into consideration while closing a CfD. Number of people shouldn't play a too big role when only a few people react. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please change back indent level of one of my comments in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 22#Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis[edit]

I don't know why I still have that page on my watchlist, but I noticed that you outdented my reply to RevelationDirect when adding a comment of your own in this edit. After RGloucester's attacks on me in AN/I, I don't care to edit that section any more, but my non-vote comment should not have its indentation changed except to match that of the comment I was responding to. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I have reverted the indent on your edit timed at 21:46, 23 March. I had intended to do that on a different one. – Fayenatic London 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:United House logo.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:United House logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hunt color model[edit]

Hi Fayenatic,

you undid my addition of the Hunt color model to the Hunt disambiguation page, commenting:

not appropriate until there is an article, or at least a mention of Hunt in color model.

Well, there is no mention of Hunt in color model, but there is a mention of the Hunt color model in LMS color space which links to Hunt. (Color model, in turn, links to LMS color space.) That was the very reason I added it to Hunt.

Background: The LMS color space article contained some errors and was a little confusing, so I cleaned it up a bit and thereby added the Hunt color model. All other color models in this article have links (even if no article exists), so I figured this should also be the case for the Hunt color model. Of course, what we could do is link directly to Hunt color model, so that there’s no immediate need for an entry in Hunt.

In any case, it would probably be best to create at least stubs for the various color models and Color Appearance Model, but since I’m not a native English speaker, I hesitate to do much in the English Wikipedia – for now, I just wanted to clean up LMS color space.

http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1119967031.html

I know – this thing even invades my dreams;–)

--Uli Zappe (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Uli Zappe: Thanks for your work, and this explanation! I mentioned the external link in my edit summary to acknowledge that the Hunt CAM was a real thing.
If the number of notable colour appearance models is limited, I suggest creating a list of them as a new section in the main article, with their date and a few words e.g. what they are used for, specialist field if applicable, extent to which they have been taken up. Then, create a redirect to this list for each CAM that does not yet have an article. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I was surprised that there was no German wiki page linked to color model. I found de:Farberscheinungsmodell and linked that; it was previously incorrectly linked to CIECAM02. I can see that Farberscheinungsmodell means color appearance model, which is more specific than color model, but as we do not have separate articles for the two concepts I think this is the best way to link them for now. – Fayenatic London 07:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The question is, what is the main article? This would be Color Appearance Model, but there is no such article in the English Wikipedia; Color Appearance Model forwards to Color model. However, Color Models and Color Appearance Models are two very different animals: A color model defines a way to describe colors by a specific set of parameters, e.g. RGB, CMYK or XYZ. A color appearance model tries to model psychological effects of human color vision depending on the viewing environment, i.e. the way colors change for the human vision in bright or dim light etc. This has hardly anything to do with each other. About the only point of contact would be the CIELAB color space, which is a color model (components L, a and b) which at the same time tries to model some very basic appearance phenomena (basically lightness (= L), perceived color difference (= delta E) and chromatic adaptation (Lab values are relative to an illuminant white point)).
So it’s quite misleading that Color Appearance Model forwards to Color Model. There should be a separate article for Color Appearance Model. If there was one, I do agree that we could include a list of color appearance models there, and from there link to those which have their own article (like CIECAM02).
By the way, I was surprised that there was no German wiki page linked to color model. I found de:Farberscheinungsmodell
That does again mix up color model and color appearance model; the correct link would be de:Farbraum#Farbmodell. Can you correct this? --Uli Zappe (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I tried, using a new redirect de:Farbmodell, but it seems that Wikidata no longer allows a redirect to be given as an interwiki link, if the target page already has its own Wikidata item.
If you create a stub in enwiki for color appearance model, I could link that to Farberscheinungsmodell. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, unaware that you already tried, I tried exactly the same, and indeed, it does not work. I have at least removed the incorrect link to Farberscheinungsmodell. Unfortunately, a stub for color appearance model won’t remove this problem, since the issue is that we would need Color model to link to de:Farbraum, which in the German Wikipedia includes a section about color models, whereas Color space also (correctly) links to de:Farbraum. We simply have one German article for two English ones. --Uli Zappe (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you start an article, I will be happy to copy-edit it for good English if necessary. A definition followed by a list (as suggested above) would be a useful start. – Fayenatic London 18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Uli Zappe/Color Appearance Model. If you consider this a suitable starting point, feel free to correct any English issues. --Uli Zappe (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Better wait with any English corrections, as I still want to edit some of the content, but I don’t know when I’ll have the time to do so. --Uli Zappe (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just wondered if you had seen these articles: Color psychology and Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate. CorinneSD (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn’t, but these deal with phenomena that are yet another level higher. Basically, we have 3 levels: 1. Light meets the eye, human sensors respond – colorimetry, the most basic, psychophysiological level. 2. The light appears to a human (generally, all human) observer(s) as e.g. a "bright, saturated red" – color appearance/psychology, which is what we deal with here 3. “He found that to men, women dressed in the color red were significantly more likely to attract romantic attention than women in any other color.“– cultural connotations of color. --Uli Zappe (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I put a new version of the article draft on User:Uli Zappe/Color Appearance Model. I’m still not completely satisfied with the article, but cannot spend more time on it now. Please correct any English issues; I’ll publish the article after that. --Uli Zappe (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Four questions to your edits:

1. Line 2: "Objectively" was meant to be in quotation marks and not as an emphasis (because, as the subject of color shows, the concept of objectivity might be quite naive) – OK to switch back?

OK.

2. Only if all these conditions stay constant will two identical stimuli with identical XYZ tristimulus values – I think a "thereby" is still needed after "with", because otherwise, the sentence could suggest that "identical stimuli without identical XYZ values" could also exist (which they cannot) – OK?

Yes, OK.

3. Line 62: It (the Hunt model) had a very significant impact on CIECAM02, but because of its complexity it is difficult to use. – Maybe I’m thinking too “German” here, but it seems to me something from my version (… is difficult to use itself.) is missing, namely the contrast to CIECAM02. CIECAM02, although it took a lot from the Hunt model, is easy to use, but the Hunt model itself is not. Your version might suggest to some readers that CIECAM02 also inherited the complexity from the Hunt model. If you cannot use "itself" here, any other way to accentuate this nuance in English?

I suggest: "but because of its complexity the Hunt model is difficult to use."
I made it "but because of its complexity the Hunt model itself is difficult to use." for more clarity. If this still doesn’t work in English, remove the "itself".

4. Otherwise, is the article ready for publication from your POV? --Uli Zappe (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you and very well done! – Fayenatic London 12:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) I’ve published it now. --Uli Zappe (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! I changed the article name to lower case, and added categories. Please look up, down and around those categories in case you can find more appropriate ones. What about your draft: do you want to redirect it, or shall I delete it? – Fayenatic London 15:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Please delete the draft, that spares me to look up how to do this (which I always forget …) – Looking around the categories, I find there is a "Color appearance phenomena" category. I don’t know if the article itself should be added there, but in any case, I will add links to the phenomena with an article of their own. If I find other categories, I’ll come back here. EDIT Since some color appearance phenomena I listed do not have an article of their own, the "Color appearance phenomena" category should probably be added. --Uli Zappe (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Apart from that, maybe Psychophysics? --Uli Zappe (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK' I've put Category:Color appearance models within category:Psychophysics, so Category:Color appearance phenomena will be a sibling category. We could add "see also" links between them. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "See also" would make sense. --Uli Zappe (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. You probably noticed that I linked other pages to the new page, and added a wikidata link to the German page. That's pretty well integrated now.
Would you like to nominate it for WP:DYK, so that it would be featured for 6 hours on the main page? I haven't done a DYK for some time, but last time I did, the deal was that if you submit one, you have to assess somebody else's. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I think the article is too technical to be of general interest. Besides, I have no time left for now. --Uli Zappe (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Members of the CPPCC National Committee[edit]

Dear Fayenetic, thank you for your excellent closure decisions! Please do not forget executing the second one, i.e. the double upmerge. If you are in the proces or about to start anyway, please disregard my comment! All the best, gidonb (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! The second part is listed for manual processing at WP:CFDWM. Armbrust may do it, as he has a bot which can do double upmerges. If you use WP:AWB, you would be welcome to do it yourself. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes check.svg Done Armbrust The Homunculus 22:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks, Armbrust. You may have noticed that I am working manually through the American rock singer-songwriters, as they do not all need to go in all the parents (e.g. if in a gendered sub-cat already). – Fayenatic London 17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

RE Category:Cowboy[edit]

Hi, thanks for your input re the above very flawed general category ("Oppose, this needs more work than that. For a start, C2C would mean merging the biography articles to the existing Category:American cattlemen. I suggest a full CFD to restructure the contents, with Category:Cowboy culture becoming the head cat of the "Cowboy..." categories. Probably best to propose a split of the nominated category to American cattlemen and Cowboy culture.")

You are of course correct. Can you help me go about this. I am sorry for being a pain but I don't even know how to start that process. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks – done. WP:CFD#HOWTO goes into a lot of detail, but the short templates listed under "Edit the category" are usually all that is needed, and easily memorised. Please let me know if you find any of it unclear. – Fayenatic London 06:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


CFD templates remaining[edit]

Hi jc37, you seem to have left some category pages tagged after closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Australian politicians. Some of them are easily spotted in Category:Categories for discussion from January 2015. Hope this helps.

In case you were not aware, CydeBot is not removing templates after CfD renames at the moment, but using WP:CFDWR after keep/no consensus results seems to be working fine.

By the way, thanks for leaving some good policy-driven rationales on overdue CfDs recently. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As that was a nom that was "partially" implemented, I didn't think about the tags on the other part. Nice catch, thank you.
and thanks. On many, I really don't have an opinion, it's more just to help the closer have "something" to implement that follows current consensus/convention/policy/etc. I'm just amazed at the backlog myself. - jc37 19:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Chuck Pierce[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up on your nomination of the article for deletion. I appreciate having been given a chance to argue for keeping it. Chuck is quite a remarkable person, extremely well known in some Christian streams, and I think it would be a shame to delete the article. Waitak (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

re:Category:Radio dramas[edit]

No problem. I thought I'd be bold and close one of the oldest outstanding CfDs, as no-one else seems to bother! Now awaiting someone to tell me not to do closures like that in the future, haha. Happy days. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

To Fayenatic london: Thank you very much for 'Wikifying' a portion of the Mandel page. When I'm back home tomorrow, I'll get busy on continuing that work. Thanks, again. ReidWilliam (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

ReidWilliam: I did it in stages to try and make it easy for you to follow. I've just finished number 2 for you. Read the notes I left in the edit summaries (page history) too. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Fayenatic london: I really appreciate that. Thank you. (I'll keep plugging away on it, until I get it right.) ReidWilliam (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't want your user page to be a red link, but don't want to reveal anything about yourself, you could simply redirect the user page to the user talk page. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fayenatic london: Have continued to work on 'wikifying' References section of the Mandel page. (Hope it's looking slightly cleaner.) I apologize that I still haven't figured out how to delete the multiple footnote numbers: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], that have popped up at the top of References section. ReidWilliam (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Fayenatic london I'm continuing to work on 'wikifying' the Mandel page, and am (finally) repairing the footnotes and numbering. (I think I've finally figured that aspect out.) Bear with me, please. ReidWilliam (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • ReidWilliam: OK, good, well done! Please don't include external links to the publisher's or retailers' sites for the books; the automatic ISBN links in the bibliography are sufficient. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: Thanks to you both for the editing and formatting help re: the Mandel page, and for your latest round of comments. With regard to notability, I've gone back and done a bit more research. Since it sounds like book reviews in major periodicals, significant awards, and work being anthologized are key, I've found some other relevant citations that I hadn't been aware of. These include several more of the author's books being reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and The Horn Book; three journalism awards; and an anthology and edited collection that include the author's work. Am working on double-checking the citations. Please, if you would, give me a few hours on this. Many thanks. ReidWilliam (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: More to come, but as noted above, I've done some further research. With regard to the notability question, I've added citations for several more reviews of Mandel's books in major journals (Publishers Weekly, Kirkus). Have put these under 'External Links' so as not to disrupt the formatting. As well, I've added citations, under 'Other Works,' for two edited anthologies that include the author's work. One is an older collection of animal related essays in the "Chicken Soup" series, the other a recent anthology of travel journalism. There's another anthology, and two other journalistic awards that have popped up as well; am currently at work on verifying them. Thanks again for your patience. ReidWilliam (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I've added citations for two more Lowell Thomas awards from The Society of American Travel Writers. Articles of Mandel's for The Washington Post won bronze Lowell Thomas awards in 2003 and 2006. (Not that you perhaps care, but these are, at least given the evidence I've encountered, the premier national awards for American travel journalism.) Thanks for your patience, and best wishes. ReidWilliam (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)