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

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)