User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive03

Archives

Archive 1 (9 Sept 2006 - 20 Aug 2007)
Archive 2 (21 Aug 2007 - 17 Apr 2008)

If I left a message on your talk page, I probably added it to my watchlist, so you can reply there if you prefer and I should still read it soon. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names articles

responding to input on my talk page

The choice of redirect target for Pillai (surname) was an oversight ... I think. Thank you for rectifying the situation. In fact, considering recent discussions it might not be unreasonable to delete Pillai (surname) as being both contrary to emerging style consensus and an unlikely search term. Thoughts?

With regard to the halt in discussion: You weren't at fault. There are two major (and lots of minor) reasons for halts in discussions. One, as pointed out when I asked a similar question, is that extended silence can be interpreted as a sign of having reached consensus. The second is that the issue has become sufficiently complicated in its treatment that people aren't sure which thread to pull on. It is likely that the second is in play here, which is remedied by a redirection and focusing of the discussion. I believe the ball is in my court on both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#How notable is notable enough? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Guideline for content of the list of names associated with a name article, so I will give some thought about how to place the return on each. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I think it's supposed to be that a user who is blocked with "account creation blocked" would not be able to register a new account; much like autoblocking, but only for account creation, while autoblocking would apply only to existing accounts the blocked user tries to use. However, I don't think the software actually does this. Mango juice^talk 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seawater Greenhouse

Many thanks.

the concept was first given an airing at: http://energydiscussiongroup.wikispaces.com/2008+Conference

Not sure if file has been upploaded but it will be shortly....Thanks...17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

House of Duras

With regards the House of Duras article, I just merged the separate articles in case someone else more trigger happy came in and prodded or AFD'ed them out of existence first, so I should go back and do a little tidying up too Alastairward (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advert page

You said that "Aminoss" wiki page is like an advert, can you be more accurate in order to fix this ? i don't know where are you seeing an advert there. Please help

Sofiane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofianeh (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ai

We kind of edit conflicted there, see my revision. Did I remove any significant edits of yours? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have repeated the necessary changes. I was prepared to leave the Japan-exclusive Beanie Baby, but it's not listed at Notable Beanie Babies so let it go! - Fayenatic (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy

Looks like you're right, I put the entry back. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

would this web site help?

http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/index.htm

The wiki reference is to a talk he gave, so its not the wiki itself that is the reference, but the talk, which will be uploaded soon?

Cheers

Engineman....

Aidan rhyming trend

I recreated this article, which is now up for AFD. Perhaps you could add something to improve upon it or have something to say in the ensuing debate over whether it should be deleted. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is probably an acceptable solution. I do think the information is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek citron

I fixed it to fit a 5 inch wide screen, please tell me if you like it. Shoteh (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for removing the tags, I thought they were placed only because of the graphic problem you mentioned. Your job in copy-edit is excelent, keep on your good work!

I have edited a little bit in the first paragraph because it is more comprehensive this way. Waiting to hear from you! Shoteh (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal consistency of the Bible

You very kindly remarked, back in January, on the work I had put into the article on Internal consistency of the Bible. Thanks, I don't think I actually did thank you at the time, and I did appreciate the comment.

Now another editor has been overhauling the article, and in doing so has taken exception to one part of this section - the reference I put in, to a quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I felt this was actually a useful quotation, not only because it gave depth to the discussion - showing how the issue could be seen as an inspiration to people, quite aside from the debate about whether the references concerned were contradictory or not, or were meant to be - but also because I actually have a very great respect for Bonhoeffer (as for anyone who is prepared to die for helping others).

This editor has commented that the quotation: "in isolation, the claim to exclusiveness leads to fanaticism and slavery; and in isolation the claim to totality leads to secularisation and self-abandonment of the Church" is misleading, and the way it was cited, makes it "seem like a slur on Christianity". I am puzzled that anyone should think this, and frankly offended that anyone would suggest that I would distort a reference in such a way as to make it seem like a slur. However, I don't think I'm really objective about this and I'm not sure I can argue about this simply on the basis of my interpretation. Would you mind having a look at the article again, and this section of the talk page: [[1]], and telling me whether you think this observation is fair? Have I misrepresented what Bonhoeffer was saying? I would value your opinion on this. --Rbreen (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still on my watchlist and I've noticed that things were going on, but it's an article that requires a serious investment of time which I can't afford in my current daily dabbling. I hope to look into it shortly but have a particularly busy week coming up, so can't promise... Fayenatic (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do think your contribution would be useful, if you can manage to find the time. --Rbreen (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it all now. A lazy reading would pick it up as a slur, viz. "the claim to exclusiveness leads to fanaticism" etc, whereas DB's point is that either claim in isolation leads to (etc), and that both are necessary. However, I also think that DB's argument is too complex to be presented in this article, although we can by all means refer to his conclusions. I'll suggest a shorter version on the talk page. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - short and sweet, and better than I think I would have managed. --Rbreen (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed it. Can I bring up "Modern New Testament scholarship" -- isn't Carson also "modern"? Perhaps "Modern" should be "liberal" or something more specific? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional children

Hi, this category was recreated recently (not by by me!) and was sent to CfD and I thought you might want to give your two cents. For An Angel (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic -- First, I want to thank you for your willingness to engage in a civil discussion, with an open mind. Yes, I'm very happy that I was able to persuade you to change your mind. But even more important was the fact that we had a very productive dialog, with a very good outcome. And now For An Angel has come around too!

I was just looking over the new sub-cats that you've added, and I'm not sure that Category:Fictional adoptees and Category:Fictional orphans belong there. I did give some thought to both of them, but I held back because I think they both have large numbers of articles that don't really belong in Category:Fictional children -- adult characters who are known to have been orphaned or adopted when they were children. I think it would probably be better to install horizontal links to both of those categories. (I created the CatRel template which I used quite often for that purpose.) Let me know what you think about this.

PS - I just reverted the vandalism of your talk page. (You must have pissed off somebody!) Some twerp had turned it into a redirect to Penis. Real cute. At least it wasn't a picture! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, and reverting this page! Thank you too for unravelling the flaws in my arguments in the CFD.

About these sub-cats: I considered your point as I was adding them, but decided to put them in anyway, because (i) the clear majority of articles in the sub-cats meet the criteria for the parent cat anyway, and I believe that makes it valid to put one category within another. (ii) Articles should only be in those categories if it was notable in the context of that character that they were orphaned/adopted, and by definition that is an event which happened in childhood, so if the event was notable, their fictional childhood must have been notable; therefore they all belong under the parent category anyway.

Is that good enough? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't have the energy to check out all of those articles, but if you feel pretty sure that a clear majority qualify, I suppose we should leave the sub-cats where they are for now. They can always be moved out later if there's reason to do so. I'm not quite certain whether I entirely agree with part ii, but that's probably less important, as long as most of the articles apparently are about child characters in any event. Cgingold (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epicaricacy was not a content fork

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork.
— Wikipedia:CFORK#Related articles

wanker. Stop spreading your lies.151.197.116.67 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it was. Methinks somebody lost a bet! - Fayenatic (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional children

Hey there, I just saw Category:Lists of fictional children. Nice work! I hope you'll find time to respond to my questions above some time soon. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Twist article

Hi thanks for your message. To be honest, I had totally forgotten about that, I should have worked on it by now! I would be grateful though if you would give me time now to work on the article, as I now have the time to do so, but it won't be an overnight huge improvement! Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NN

The backlink removal is automatic when I delete pages using Twinkle. I thought I'd gone back and removed the link altogether, but all I did was revert myself. Hmm. More haste... --Dweller (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need the mop to be able to delete with it, but it's a very useful tool for non-admins too. Have you ever considered becoming an admin? --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, planning to stand when I think I have the time to handle the correspondence! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me a line when you think you're ready. --Dweller (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. By the way, does your user name have an Iain M Banks connection? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. See my user page! --Dweller (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, Categories, Kings and Judges

I have gone through all the links in Template:Judges, Template:Kings of Judah, and Template:Kings of Israel‎ and made sure that the corresponding category was included in hardcopy on every article. It is no longer necessary to transclude the categories through the templates. Now, because we are transcluding the categories through the templates, AND because a user has decided to place the template in their userspace, we have User:Carlaude/Template included in the category list of Category:Kings of ancient Judah, Category:Kings of ancient Israel, and Category:Judges of ancient Israel. Having the userspace in mainspace categories is a "no no". The solution would be to remove these templates from the user space, and monitor the situation so that no one ever places the template anywhere but the main namespace (so no article talk pages either), or we could just remove the transcluded categories. I'd prefer the latter option ;), but I'm writing you now to hear you out (because you reverted me yesterday). Cheers!-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the Judges category was depopulated yesterday, but I see that you have added the category to each article today. There would have been another solution: to add category suppression code as in the case of Template:Prophets of the Tanakh. But as these categories have a defined and limited membership, I agree that it is no longer necessary to transclude the categories. I'll revert myself. Thanks for your courteous explanation. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. Always a third option. I'll have to learn that code one day (for suppressing categories). Anyway, thanks for helping clear this matter up!-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut & paste?

Hi, please clarify the website you meant to refer to at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aminoss. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I can't believe I copied the wrong link over. I have now fixed it. Its a shame, I personally think there is enough information out there that a case could be made for Notability. However, cut and pasting a copyrighted article is not the way to do it. I would have tried to correct the problem, but there would have been nothing left. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... isn't it more likely that CNet copied from Wikipedia? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarly and the problem we have here is that CNET is copyrighted - we are not. In addition, our article was only posted in January of this year with a majority of the article wwritten with in a couple of days. To me that is pretty hard evidence of a cut and paste. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Alien (franchise) lists

I have nominated Category:Alien (franchise) lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child characters in written fiction

Hi there, Fayenatic - Just in case you're not keeping an eye on the CFD pages at the moment, I thought you'd like to know that Jupiter Optimus Maximus is back for another bite of the apple -- in this case, Category:Child characters in written fiction. (no idea why he picked out that one in particular) So far he hasn't actually tagged it for CFD (and needless to say, no courtesy notice for you, as creator). Silly me, I thought these new categories were "home free" for a while at least. Cgingold (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Tice reference

Hi. I have responded to your question on the Rico Tice talk page. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aqua teen hunger force question

in the aqua teen movie on the chalkboard is a hangman game does anyone know what the word was the letters are GINGI_IP_R you cant use ACDZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongemonkey04 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

finish this hangman that was in the movie GINGI_IP_R you cant use ACDZSpongemonkey04 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)–≈[reply]

Search me! If you google for "crossword solver" you will find tools to help you with puzzles like this, assuming of course that there is a solution. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intermittency

Hi - the problem is to an extent one of semantics.

The simple point I have been trying to get over, is that conventional power grids, call it what you will, are as intermittent in many respects as one heavily relying on wind.

All grids have to have back up plant, or mechanisms at all times, so it is quite misleading as many commentators claim, wrongly that wind is inherently new in its intermittency.

The same already existing mechanisms can to a large extent be used to cope with the intermittency of wind, as are presently used to cope with the intermittency of conventional plant. I find it hard to believe you have not come across unplanned outages in 15 years - which country are you talking about? did you see that UK suddenly lost 1.5 GW in a few minutes? AND didn't have enough reserve capacity.

If the entire grid had been running entirely on wind, that could not have happened, you simply could not have lost 1.5 GW of wind generators simultaneously.

The issue of intermittency is heralded by either ignorant or deviously mid leading persons as in some way being the Achilles heel of wind powered generation - it is not, it is perfectly possibly to design grids to have almost 100% of wind generation and yet maintain continuous generation at reasonable cost, and any article on intermittency should recognise that. The Danish grid is studying how to do just that at the moment.

Kind Regards

Engineman

Materials category

Nope, this time I did it on purpose. I removed the tags from the two-three redirects that were in the category and proposed the category, which now has only one actual article in it, for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictus (Song of Zechariah)

Hello, I've been offline most of today and just got around to your message. Have replied here. JGHowes ^talk - 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals

You'll see I've added a few more to Category:Hospitals by year of establishment since I left my comment about Barts! Personally, I think it'd be OK to stick with centuries for the early ones rather than a "pre-1700" category - Barts is now part of the Category:12th century establishments, which seems to work. Any further ideas? Bencherlite ^Talk 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw there were more. My fear for early centuries is that the categories will only have a small population. However, they are defensible as part of a structure, and it is probably better to have them as sub-cats of Category:12th century establishments etc. Keep up the good work! - Fayenatic (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reduplication category

Hi at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_11#Double_double_names_names you said I know I have been adding non-significant pages to them; call it experimentation - perhaps it fruitfully drew your attention to raise this CFD - can you please explain further what you have been doing please and why? Thanks --Matilda ^talk 05:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 4#Category:Double names, a category was deleted without first being listified, despite support for having a list; so I created List of people with reduplicated names. I then removed Boutros Boutros-Ghali and other people who were in that list from Category:Reduplicants. Any items from the deleted category that were not people, such as Gimme Gimme, I added to the category. I coincidentally came across various other repeated names and added them to the category, including Chi-Chi and Jay Jay. This was not to intentionally devalue the category, but to repopulate it and see what sort of things it would contain if it was fully populated. However, I do think that listing significant instances in the article Reduplication will be of more value than the category. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arutprakasa Vallalar Chidambaram Ramalinga Swamigal

Dear Fayenatic london, As you said if that mis-spelled problem is a recurring one then I don't mind disambinguation. Regards. --Logic riches (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haathi Mere Saathi

Dear Fayenatic london, Haathi mere saathi is a super-hit Pakistani film released in 1993. for your reference please visit following link [2]. mostly in Indian and Pakistani film industry, they make films with smiler names.

Happy First Day of Summer!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008! Mifter (talk)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.

Massacre --> Wiktionary

Thanks for telling me about this! I just trusted AWB, which has done a great job until this. I will definitely clean up. Thanks. --AnnaFrance (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I love Popups. Once you get used to having it, it's hard to remember how you lived without it. --AnnaFrance (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for approaching me. I've had a look, and the current (protected) article seems about right to me. I think this comment by user:Wandalstouring sums up what belongs in the Telescope article. Ibn al-Haytham is mentioned in the separate article History of telescopes, but the content there does not suggest that he deserves to be noted any more strongly in the main article. If the content about him in that History article is inadequate, perhaps you should first add content to that one. As for Richard Powers, he's noted as a novelist rather than a historian, so I'm not persuaded that this makes him a particularly credible source. Best wishes, - Fayenatic (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Your edit to Ba'kelalan

I spotted your edit to Ba'kelalan and decided to put the URL from your edit summary into the References. However, when I looked at the Green Village website I couldn't find any reference to the duration of the journey. Can you point me in the right direction, please?

Can't help asking whether your interest in the Ba'kelalan article stems from a visit there? I have very happy memories of the place...

Cheers -- Hebrides (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually received the quoted report by email from Neal Nirmal, who runs the Green Village (Kampung Hijau) service and website. No doubt it could be verified with him if required. As the previous source reference was just to WikiTravel, where I made the same correction with a little more detail, I considered that that would suffice.

The report I received stated 6 to 7 hours, but said they always start early in the day to give plenty of time to arrive before dark -- the journey can take over 24 hours if the vehicle gets bogged down. Given the distance (variously stated as 125 or 150 miles) by logging track, "at least 6 hours" is plainly more correct than "up to 6".

I have trekked in Malaysia and visited Sarawak, but not that particular location. Friends have been to the Kelabit highlands. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply - now I understand why I couldn't find it on the website. I don't doubt that it takes six or more hours (depending on conditions) and I think your edit is valuable. It was just that I noticed the URL and felt like adding a reference if I could. -- Hebrides (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicals

I've noticed that you're cleaning out Category:Musical theatre, and much thanks for that! However, Category:Musicals has several subcats (by year, source material, etc.), and shouldn't contain any articles on musicals, either. Thanks! — Music Maker 5376 19:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I hope that half a job is better than none... I thought I'd leave it to someone else to down-categorise from "musicals", as doing it properly requires work to select multiple categories by year, genre etc. I didn't want to hide the article in just one subcat e.g. by year and omit the others. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Nice to meet you today! Gordo (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section

Beckjuno (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Okay, I understand. I appreciate pointing it out to me though. Just letting you know, you have a really cool page.[reply]

Those walks I mentioned....

Please feel free to spread the word!

Limehouse Loop
Three Mills Loop
River Lea Vale Walk (dates to be announced)

Gordo (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBE (disambiguation)

~~Oh come on!!~~ Actually, I agree that the "C.B.E." page should be a redirect to "Order of the British Empire". (I nearly made that change myself.) And I also agree that you then needed to make "CBE (disambiguation)" consistent with that. Both are changes I support.
But to provide an edit comment of "→See also: Delete section, WP:Content fork from this page, selectively promoting a sub-set of meanings" to justfy your actions is tantamount to lying; it neither "fork"ed nor "selectively promot[ed] a sub-set of meanings" before you made your edit! It was your edit that created that situation!!
A little bit of "truth in advertising" please! (No response requested or expected.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding anyway: the comment was not aimed at you, but the previous edits to C.B.E. were all a result of the questionable redirection of CBE to Coimbatore. The initial error at C.B.E. to that page was done by a bot and then it was expanded to a disam page (not knowing the history) when it should have been redirected the same as CBE. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that. No wonder your comments didn't make sense to me - they weren't addressed to me!

As you say: "but never mind, we agree that it's as it should be now."

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When I tidied them all up, I wanted to leave a robust policy-backed edit summary so that my work wouldn't get reverted." - I understand. I was trying to achieve something similar with this one. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid or shaheed

I think care should be taken in defining these two words of Shahid and Shaheed, as they both have different meanings and pronunciations.

Pronunciations: Shahid pronounced in Arabic as Ash-Sha-Hid, in Roman Urdu/Hindi as Sha-Hid or shāhid. Whereas the word Shaheed in Arabic pronounced as Ash-Sha-Heed, in Urdu/Hindi as Sha-Heed or shahīd.

Meanings: Shahid (Sha-Hid or shāhid) means in Arabic & Urdu/Hindi as 'a witness'. Whereas Shaheed (Sha-Heed or shahīd) means in Arabic & Urdu/Hindi as 'a martyr'. You can get further details in the following links:

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional orphans

Category:Fictional orphans has been nominated for 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.

The category's creator stopped editing last October, so I thought I'd notify you instead. :) Cgingold (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Star Trek animals

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Star Trek animals, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --EEMIV (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Creation Society

I have looked at your article and wish it well. It might be useful if there were information on the size of its membership. Citations of an organisation's website are strictly not an independent source, but likely to be reliable where talking about itslef. I am not sure how appropriate it is to list the officers, unless they are also notable, but an academic with 50 published papers may be (depending on his field): it might be useful to provide an article on him. I picked up the debate on David C. C. Watson through watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity. I am a Christian, but my views on the creation/evolution debate are somewhat equivocal. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Series of comic books

Good morning (well, it's morning in London)... I note that you depopulated and deleted category:Series of comic books without CFD. The reason for creating this category was to give comics a place within category:Series of books. I haven't followed the Comics category discussions closely and I'm not in the Project, but as I understand it there are one-off comics as well as many series, so I'm not sure that the replacement category:Comics publications belongs within "series of books".

On the basis that comics are mostly series, may I put category:Comics publications within Book series?

Perhaps you consider that List of comic books does all that is required? As a user, I like navigating by categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your request for clarification.

Yes, the whole tree of Category:Comics is currently under a ReOrg. (Which is part of why CfD is rather active with comics and fiction cats.)

As for that specific category, it was somewhat duplicate of other catgories. Essentially, we're attempting to make it easier to navigate the categories.

And as you noted in your edit summary, I already added the publications cat as a subcat of book series.

Hope this helps clarify. - jc37 08:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks.

I suggest that the article The Adventures of Tintin and the categories for Tintin books, Asterix books and Lucky Luke albums don't really belong in that top category, and need to be moved down. It was for categories and articles such as those that I created Category:Series of comic books. Shall I leave it to you? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note the diffuse template.)

After a discussion with J Greb, it appears that we have infoboxes which will categorise directly to the top-level cat. So it looks like all entries will need to be checked, with the correct parameter passed so that they can be correctly sub-categorised.

So anyway, please feel free to subcat away. - jc37 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Are you inviting me to recreate the deleted category? or just to down-categorise the above-mentioned examples by country/genre/etc? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess (to use your terms) "down-cat". - jc37 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK 2.0

I mentioned this on Wednesday.... meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 Gordo (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named ...

Heya...barring consensus, I've reverted back to the lack of list as discussed previously. I still stand by my decision that any such list is guaranteed to be flawed. How do we determine who is notable enough for listing? Current famous-ness? Why is Jennifer Aniston (one actress, listed) more notable than Jennifer Beals (another actress, not listed) or Jennifer Jason Leigh (actress, also not listed)? Is any actress more notable than a famous author (Jennifer Crusie, not listed) or an award-winning movie director (Jennifer Jako, not listed)? Basically, who determines this, and more importantly, who gets dropped off the list when someone "more notable" comes along? This sort of list becomes a popularity contest, with Wikipedia editors failing to keep to WP:NPOV by any edit of it. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again

We are crossing paths increasingly often. I don't take offence at that, as I aim to edit in a way that stands up to scrutiny, and it's usually educational to work with a tireless contributor. However, I trust that you won't mind my asking if there's a reason for this. Do you consider that I have bad taste in categories? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was watching your contributions list to watch for your response at CfD, and noticed the category. Investigated, and commented.

It's not dissimilar to how I discover most discussions.

And I am fairly active in categories, in general.

As for your "taste in categories", that's up to you.

Personally, categories (and their inclusion criteria) need to be clear, precise, not vague, minimise duplication, maximise usage, be organised, generally follow conventions of the parent(s), and should typically follow the various policies and guidelines (many of which are a result of CFD or other XfD discussions, such as WP:OC and WP:CLN). Among many other criteria. (Though yes, exceptions are possible.)

A major one is if references would be required (for BLP reasons, for example), then it should be a list. While there are specific instances where a category and a list are appropriate, that's not the typical case.

This is just a "quick" summary, and is nowhere near all-inclusive of my thoughts. (I've been involved with categories and CFD for awhile, so, much of my opinion has developed over time, through many discussions.)

If you would like further clarification, feel free to ask. - jc37 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes

You had participated back in February in this CfD regarding the Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes, which ended in no consensus. A new proposal has been made to eliminate this category and merge its contents to Category:War documentaries which is now going on at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 24#Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes. You are encouraged to reconsider the original CfD, revisit your opinion in that discussion and participate again in this latest CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic, Would you be good enough to take another look at the discussion? I hope you'll reconsider your !vote for merging in light of the comments I've added. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be more prepared to do so if it was part of a bigger set of categories about war crimes, as I've just suggested there. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

toasters!

Hey Fayenatic london - thanks for the note, both about the edit (I hate it when I miss one!) and the name. I can't say I knew what a Fayenatic was, but I just searched for it under your page's prompting - and learned something today! Happy editing to you. -FlyingToaster (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Myrtle Avenue (UK)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Myrtle Avenue (UK), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle Avenue (UK). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Reply

The controversies matter and its inclusion have been discussed many a time and not only in the section you indicated but also other talk pages. It was concluded more than once that SRK has never been directly involved in major and serious controversies. Notability must be established, and sources do not always do that. There have been thousand other tiffs and mini-controversies similar to this minor issue sparking around the actor. They appear non-notable, trivial and unencyclopedic, even if they're sourced. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by origin, part 2

Hello -- I just discovered that Category:Fictional characters by origin and all of its 100 or so sub-cats were deleted en masse a few weeks ago. Thanks to the way it was initially set up and then changed half way through -- and especially because the focus of the discussion was entirely on comics characters -- I honestly didn't realize what was at stake in that CFD. I'm still reeling at the thought of what's been lost. It's gonna have to be reversed at DRV. But first -- there's a new CFD to eliminate Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity and all of it's sub-cats (which were somehow missed in the earlier CFD). What a travesty. It's so much easier to destroy than it is to create. Aargh! Anyway, I thought you'd want to know about this new round. Cheers? Cgingold (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of DavidLee

A tag has been placed on DavidLee, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Street

Thank you for the instructions, what a funny thing this Corrie Theme. I will try to get the letter posted myself. Hope all is well with you. Kindly, Monika London (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone at the Hunt household is quite relieved that a legitimate recognition exists now at the very least. Do not worry about encouragement or lack there of. The whole point is to state the facts and provide the information accurately. Other news outlets have become interested in the story and after having the Manchester hang up the phone several times; we have decided a new story is probably a more satisfying option anyway.Monika London (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ansari (Nesbat)

Good evening, I am writing from Pakistan, where recently I added some information regarding the advent of Ansaris in this region. However, it was twice removed. Please inform me how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishratqabili (talk • contribs) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I apologise for the delay, blame my old age, I had forgotten my password for my earlier account.

Coming down to the issue at hand, I have somewhat sourced the article I added to the Ansari (nesbat) page, but please be informed that a bundle of sources are in hard copies in the shape of Law Digests, Legal Reviews etc, for which we do not have any internet substitute. However, I have and will continue to add up sources as I come along. Please inform me, if the text I added earlier is admissible.

Ishrat Q,

Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishratqabili2 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard copy sources are fine. However, please note that evidence of the family's mere existence or qualifications is not enough to include them in Wikipedia. What is needed is evidence of their notability. The guideline WP:BIO should be helpful to you in explaining what this means. Are there any court transcripts recording opinions of independent persons that these Ansaris are "the oldest and the most prestigious legal families of Pakistan"? Fayenatic (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance. I did come across news paper items which can be used as sources for the notability. Also, a web page made which has been solely made a member of the Ansari family. However, regrettably, prestige, like in many other countries, is often related with it being rather "quiet". Meaning that the prestige is gained over time through excellent behaviour moral/ethical, excellent skills in court etc. None of this is recorded however. As it is, in some cases, held to be boastful. The Ansari family, however, is by far the oldest legal families in settled Pakistan, the legal practice, as a business began in the year 1948, again, please note that Pakistan was an incredibly young nation at that time and such trivial matters were not reported. Also note, that upon the demise of the founder of the Ansari family Mr Bashir Ahmad Ansari, a reference was made to him, which was attended by many politicians, judges, notable lawyers etc. I will try to obtain the records and scripts, but that would not be easy. I have read both the WP:BIO and the WP:NOTABILITY and I have come to the conclusion, that with proper sources, this item should be added to the Ansari(nesbat) page. Now, my question to you, sir, is that if I add the item with the minimal source I have, would you still erase it?

Thank you

Ishrat Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishratqabili2 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me to be able to answer that question, you would have to explain to me which criteria in WP:BIO you believe are met in the case of this person or family. I think it is unlikely that they are so notable that they deserve a whole paragraph in the article on the name. Instead, I recommend that you prepare a separate article about the lawyer(s). After creating this article, you would then add a line linked to it in the list of notable people contained in the nesbat article. You could start drafting this article on your user page User:Ishratqabili2 and nobody would delete it while you are still working on it. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

As per your request, I would gladly outline under WP:BIO why I think this family is notable.

Under the basic criteria, it is stated that a person would be assumed notable, if the said person is subject to independent published reports. Here I deem newspapers articles and independent websites to be independent published reports. Moreover, down below, under "Any Biography", a person would be deemed notable if they have received an award or a nomination,also, notability would arise if the said person has contributed significantly in his or her specific fields.

Under the basic criteria, this family, especially the founders, do fall within. Hence being notable.

Moving on, as per your statement regarding the extent of notability of the Ansari family with regards to admission in the article itself, I would believe that to be a rather objective stance. In the article, little has been said about the Ansaris in India and Pakistan, and I believe that omitting this family would not give the viewers the full scope of Ansari (nesbat) in the region, I urge you to reconsider admitting the Ansaris in the article.

With respect to starting an independent article on the lawyers, I would start that immediately depending if I have the know-how.

Ishrat, Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishratqabili2 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishrat,

If the articles only mention the people as participants in legal cases, they are probably not sufficient to prove notability. However, if there are articles about the people, please go ahead and create the draft article. If you start it on your user page, I will be happy to help with formatting. Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic, thank you for a prompt reply, I would like your assistance on this matter, the first article I have states how an important event was presided by the President of the Rawalpindi Bar Association Bashir Ahmad Ansari...would this be admissible?

Secondly, another article states how a special committee was formulated with 3 high ranking advocates and judges to review important constitution acts etc.

Please inform me if such independent articles and reports would be deemed as acceptable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishratqabili2 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be admissible, i.e. probably a WP:RS as evidence that Mr Ansari was the President of the Rawalpindi Bar Association. However, these might not be sufficient to show that he was notable. If you make a start at writing the article, then we can have a more informed discussion. Good night (from the UK), - Fayenatic (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Faynatic, how are you? I wanted to inquire something, I have been compiling articles/clippings etc on the Ansari family, and I have come about a large number of reported items. Which include scores of newspaper reports, biographies, law-deciding cases etc, however, I have been unable to get internet copies of that material. I am preparing to write an article about the Ansari family independently according to your guidance, however, how do I source the articles I have, for example the news paper clippings and law deciding case laws, special committees etc. I would be grateful if you would direct me.

Ishrat, Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishratqabili2 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ishrat, I hope you are well. Please have a look at WP:REF and let me know if there is anything that you don't understand. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{main|Ballet}} vs. {{catmore|Ballet}}

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

thank you

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

Categorising redirects

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

ditto

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

Fictional females

Why have you removed members from Category:Fictional females? User:Tone has since deleted it as empty. I can't find any discussion to delete this category, which survived a CFD as recorded at Category talk:Fictional females. RSVP here. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also emptied Category:Female stock characters leading to its deletion. The only recent mention of this in a CFD was not proposing deletion.

I know I have supported you on some of your other recent unilateral actions, but I propose to take these to DRV unless you can explain good cause for your actions. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored both cats for now. I suggest this is moved to xfd if the need to delete arises. Greetings. --Tone 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold.

The stock characters cat was a problem in that several members weren't exclusively female, but worse, it split up Category:Stock characters which was more of a hindrance to navigation. (And dabo girl, among several others, isn't a stock character.)

As for the other, it also had a problem with several of the members not being exclusively female (nurses, for example). And when I removed the occupations, it was a rather small category, pretty much covered by the LGBT categories.

What are your thoughts, based upon the above clarification? - jc37 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which former members of Category:Female stock characters were not exclusively female? I don't see any. However, I take your point about splitting up Category:Stock characters being a hindrance. As I later acknowledged below, there is also a list. (Let's discuss Dabo girl on the list's talk page.) I've posted a notice of the proposed merger at Category talk:Female stock characters and notified the creator of the category.

As for Category:Fictional females, sure there are a few exceptions among the members of the sub-cats, but they were predominantly female. I am not aware of any policy to deny head categories on the grounds that they do not exclusively apply.

Being bold is one thing, but strikes me as autocratic to delete a category that has had a "keep" decision at CFD. If you think the last CFD was in error on policy grounds then I believe you should re-nominate it, not take unilateral action. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that one of them has a parallel list. Perhaps a list is sufficient for female stock characters. I might support you on re-deleting that sub-cat. But please seek consensus; there are always category talk pages if you don't think it needs to go to CFD. Please also leave more meaningful and honest edit summaries; e.g. "removing category X, List of X suffices". And please wait four days before tagging empty categories as WP:CSD#C1. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(You posted this while I posted my response above.)

And there is nothing wrong with being bold.

As for tagging, there is no way for anyone to determine whether a category has been empty for 4 days until it's been tagged. I presume it's just like WP:PROD. Tag it, and wait four days for someone to delete it.

Also, a C1 deletion does not preclude recreation. So DRV is unnecessary.

Either you and I come to a consensus, or CfD is in the future.

I hope this clarifies. - jc37 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like PROD. All the WP:CSD tags are for speedy deletion.

WP:CSD states that the C1 tag can be added to a category that has already been empty for four days. I accept your word that tagging it immediately after emptying it was a mistake in good faith.

See Category talk:Stock characters by narrative structure for a notice that I've added. It's also good practice to notify the category creator; otherwise how will they learn (a) where their work has gone, (b) how to do it better? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, please feel free to re-read WP:CSD#C1. It doesn't say tagged at all. (Not that it's worth debating about.)

I saw the notice at Category talk:Female stock characters (and the bold edits that preceded it). I think the notice seems to be a fair representation of what you've said so far (combined with your further clarifications here).

And I think it's interesting that you lecture me about what you call "unilateral action" so recently after a CFD, when you did so yourself at Category talk:Stock characters by narrative structure. Though I will note that, even though it's not required, in this specific case, you went out of your way to proactively communicate your intentions and actions.

Anyway, I think the original reasons for discussion have been clarified: We agree on the female stock characters cat to be listified/deleted. We disagree about Category:Fictional females, which means that, if I decide to, my next step is to nominate it at CfD.

And by the way, I'd like to mention that, for the most part, this discussion's remained fairly civil, and that's rather appreciated. So thank you : ) - jc37 18:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is worth debating WP:CSD#C1, because I think what you did was not right, albeit in good faith due to misunderstanding. As you acknowledged, there is no way for the deleting administrator to know how long the cat has been empty, so he relies on the good faith and understanding of the editor who placed the tag. The table of templates on the CSD page says that C1 is Used for: "Category that has been empty for at least four days." So an editor should only add the tag if (to the best of his knowledge) the category has already been empty for four days. Otherwise he should either wait, or nominate it at CFD.

As for the lecture: I agree with WP:BOLD action to implement a change when a CFD decides that something is needed but isn't clear what, especially if the action complies with any parts of the CFD discussion that were clear. (Another recent example is as User:Timeshifter's replacement of Category:Books by region.) What I took strongest exception to was bold action in contravention of a CFD decision where there was a clear result. The other cat was deleted without any discussion at CFD or even on the category talk page or nominating the category creator, and I thought that was rude too.

I appreciate your civil tone in this discussion as well, and hope I haven't just spoilt it.

I agree on the outcomes you have described.

Lastly, can we leave this on your talk page, where it started and belongs? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the quote from CSD may be accurate, your interpretation isn't necessarily. (Not that I haven't seen people who have agreed with both interpretations.) It merely says "unpopulated", it doesn't say anything about when it should be tagged. And in every other XfD process, something is tagged at the start of the stopwatch, not at the end. And C1, is indeed the category version of "PROD". It was intended to reduce traffic at CfD. That said, it's worth clarifying, and I've been thinking that perhaps starting a discussion somewhere regarding it might be appropriate.

And you're welcome to remove most anything from your talk page per WP:TALK. - jc37 06:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arthur Sullivan changes

Sorry, but this seems exactly wrong to me. I think the old categorization was much more useful. People looking for Arthur Sullivan's works need these ballets to be in the old category. The new category, which just has the two ballets in it and will never have any more, seems useless. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the duplicate entry at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday#Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan in case he wants to join in too. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I left a message for the cat creator. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CF Turbo

Cf Turbo exists its me, I'm an amateur wrestler currently on the LEL roster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalajan (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No offence. I exist too, and I'm an amateur cyclist, fairly well known locally, but not notable enough to deserve my own Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BIO. If you don't understand the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cf Turbo I'll be happy to explain the policies. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey hey, everyone has the same value, no ones better than another - lol - one day you'll see a wwe superstar called James Whistler, Conor Cid-Fuentes, or Cid-Fuentes on its own - gimmee a few years, hey i'm a rower too, and i was born in london - kl Kalajan (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

sorry for being extremely rude LOL hahaha Kalajan (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KK Kalajan (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters

In most cases, it's better to follow the format of "List of (fictional) characters in x" than "List of x characters". (Use of "fictional" may be optional depending on the context.)

So, for example, "List of characters in science fiction television".

And so the same would go for categories which group lists. "Lists of characters in science fiction television".

The main reason is to help, if merely by the name, to help distinguish between fiction-related and non-fiction-related. - jc37 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was seeking to follow the head categories Category:Lists of television characters and Category:Science fiction television characters when I created Category:Lists of science fiction television characters.

I don't find your phrase "in science fiction television" natural. "In SF films" yes, but "in SF TV" sounds contrived to me -- I haven't heard it used as a noun phrase. The wording I used is a series of adjectives, which does sound OK to me.

However, if you want to replace the category with one that fits better with other naming conventions, I won't mind. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Wiktionary

Fixed, thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-eyed creatures

List of one-eyed creatures

Nicely done.

Word of note, you may wish to find some sources to prevent someone nominating it for deletion (as there seems to be such a hunt atm). - jc37 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see two potential sourcing issues with such a list:

A list is a type of index. When it's an incomplete list, does its membership need sourcing? Isn't it sufficient for the articles to mention the listed attribute (i.e. being one-eyed) and be sourced?
In this case, I also included some relevant facts from the listed articles, and added a generalisation in the lead section. I can see that a source was needed at least for the latter. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Solomon Male

A tag has been placed on Solomon Male requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. digitalmischief (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

favour

Hi, you know I'm sorry and I gave you the cookie and all but... Seeing as I'm learning how to make signitures and I'm getting quite good at it, how about I make one for you, I'll get to it and even if you don't want to use it I'll use a Fayenatic thing just to test, tell me the colours and I'll get to work. Kala jan 22:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, all I need now are the colours, look: Fayenatic London

Hi Kalajan, thanks very much! Don't forget the closing </span> tag. I think I'll stick with my existing sig for now, but who knows, I might go for a stronger brand in future! I stil don't know what you were apologising for, by the way. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I know everything is left behind us but if u want a change: there u have it: Fayenatic London . Cheers! Kala jan 12:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Defunct LGBT organizations

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Defunct LGBT organizations, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Defunct LGBT organizations has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Defunct LGBT organizations, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]