This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Fayenatic london

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
3 February 2016

Just for your info[edit]

Thanks for closing this CfD discussion. The follow-up is done now, so you won't have to propose C16 for upmerging. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Wow, that's well-populated, compared to the pre-C19 category a few days ago! – Fayenatic London 18:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Anand (name)[edit]

Fayenatic London, I am sorry I edited the Wikipedia page " Anand (name) "and added info that was not in keeping with Wiki policies or standards.I am sorry I wasted the valuable time of an obviously learned person as yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:57, 17 January 2016‎

Hi, thanks for your message. No problem! – I use some tools that make it very quick to review and undo such additions. Hope you had fun with your first edit. If you would like to contribute some more, take a look at our WP:Five pillars for an overview of how this project works. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jedi[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Jedi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — TAnthonyTalk 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Foresters Friendly Society[edit]


I work for Foresters Friendly society in the Marketing Department and most of the information on our page is incorrect and/or out of date hence the reason for the update. Please can you change it back as per my amends? Or advise on how I can do this please?

THanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for being open about your conflict of interest. I have replied at User talk:Foresters1976.
Please note that although your Foresters1976 account is now blocked from editing elsewhere, you may log in and reply at that user talk page.
In short, you should request changes at Talk:Foresters Friendly Society, rather than editing the article itself. These will only be accepted if you provide citations from reliable sources.
You may either do this without logging in (in which case your IP address will be recorded), or re-register with a user name representing yourself rather than an organization. – Fayenatic London 17:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Guanín[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Guanín (Taíno) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Millennia category[edit]

Let's continue this here so Marcocapelle isn't bugged by the pings or the like. In line with this discussion, I don't think the structure was intended to keep the 2nd millennium categories. I've restored and history merged Category:2nd-millennium establishments in the Old Swiss Confederacy to Category:Establishments in the Old Swiss Confederacy. Do you think it should still populate Category:2nd-millennium establishments by country or Category:Establishments by former country or both? Is that what you understood? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review, I think it makes sense to include them. For example, Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Europe include the 2nd millennium categories for places with multiple millennia but it also includes Category:Establishments in the Habsburg Monarchy since all establishments there are all a part of the 2nd millennium category. There's no reason why they all have to be titled the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I agree, include them in both. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Category move[edit]

Hi, FL - thank you for correcting my category error, [1]. For some reason, I have trouble working with the hierarchy, and I also get confused over the separation of categories in Commons and en.Wiki. See [2] and [3]. I think the former is the correct one, and the latter should probably be removed? Can you work on Commons issues? Thanks in advance, Atsme📞📧 17:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Atsme: commons:Category:User images shows a variety of naming patterns, but when e.g. "from en.wikipedia" is included in the name then it seems to identify where the editor is mainly active, rather than where the images come from. So, I have proposed merging into Commons:Category:Images_by_user:Atsme. See discussion at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Wikipedia images by user:Atsme. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
FL - can I lean on you one more time for help? I just created WikiProject Accuracy, and I don't want to do anything with the categories because I'll prolly just screw it up and make your work harder. Do I even need to add another category there? Also, do you know anything about templates? The template that introduces the project has a few issues. For example, the lead sentence is inaccurate (oh, the irony), and it doesn't link to the TP I created. Perhaps I've done that wrong as well. Please go easy on me - I created WikiProject Accuracy, not WikiProject HTML or MOS:Projects. I'm an humble copyeditor who makes mestakes. ^_^ Atsme📞📧 23:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Atsme: you'd only need a category for the project if it had multiple sub-pages, templates etc. So far you have one project page and one image file, so a category seems unnecessary at the moment. I've fixed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accuracy by adding a parameter (which I copied from another project). – Fayenatic London 10:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
FL, would you please join WP:Project Accuracy? You would be such a valuable participant. Please read what I've added so far regarding project goals and ultimately, protection of articles promoted and "sealed" with our project seal as a means of countering vandalism and inaccuracies by establishing qualifying editorial criteria. Once promoted, reviewed and approved for accuracy (RAAFA) sealed articles could be protected in much the same way special permissions pages are protected in that you have to be qualified and approved to edit that level of article - if you're not, you will get a message that you don't have permission to edit at that level with a polite and encouraging explanation of how to get approval - sorta like captcha protection in a way. Our project's qualifying participants could also include approved, qualified members of other WikiProjects with established criteria, such as WP:WikiProject Medicine. The preliminary editing steps for non-qualified editors and IPs who want to edit RAAFA promoted articles that are protected would be similar to that of semi-protection with pending changes review, so we're still maintaining the original intent of WP to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We're simply adding safeguards against vandalism and inaccuracies. Further, the inclusion of WikiProject Accuracy's seal will help establish and solidify WP articles as not only accurate, but trustworthy in that they have been peer-reviewed and/or have undergone editorial review - something we can promote to academics and researchers and spread the word via an outreach incentive. What do you think? Atsme📞📧 17:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it fits the Wikipedia way of working; it sounds more like Citizendium. You'd need to get the Wikipedia:Protection policy changed. As soon as a page reached your project's standards, it would have to be locked to non-members. This would make it harder for new editors to get started, and unlikely that people of low-level interest would get involved. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

gday from sunny oz[edit]

I am now walking away trying to deal with the festivalisation of the universe (sic)

However, I am also very concerned by a bizarre log jam of parent/sister category conflagarations leaves me cold. I am very curious as to how or what you would relatge to such a misunderstanding of categorisations. cheers JarrahTree 23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

as you choose not to respond, I'll leave it that. cheers. JarrahTree 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: Hi, sorry I took my time to get back to you. I had two editors leaving messages on my talk page at the same time, as well as various notifications and an admin backlog where I usually help out; please don't be offended that I dealt with the others, as I was planning to give your message attention when I had a chunk of time.
The first time we interacted, I thought you were mainly venting, hadn't realised you were looking for a reply, so apologies for any offence caused by not responding there.
Thanks for your support at the talk page and CFD on sports festivals.
I have pruned the category clutter on the page you mentioned. By the way, there are two more concise way to link to categories: put a colon inside the square brackets, Category:Highland games in Scotland, or use {{cat}}, which looks the same on the page: Category:Highland games in Scotland. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
nah, please do not apologise. no offence. I am very impressed by the admin material you get through, my general problem is somewhat less clear. The scottish clutter is where I really get exasperated - the collection of parent and parallel categories growing in some areas, that is beyond, in my mind xfd or rfc, it is close to a request for others to actually be requested to have a behavioural or perceptual change. That is where I gave up. Thank you for your advice re identifying the item, useful!
The original motivation to possibly have some conversation over the issue, it was that I thought that the problem with the growing chaos of mix of what I believe are the misuses of the word, and the multiple category mixes [4] and how the particular tree was developing was something close to be a rfc, but I simply have neither the time, the energy or capacity to work such an item, but there is every sign that it might be required if the growth goes unchecked with the standard of replies and justifications to date, if you get my gist JarrahTree 23:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC).