User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive11

Invitation to vote on an article

hello. since you are an editor of the article Ammar ibn Yasir, would you be interested in voting for it to make it a featured article or not? thank you for your time Grandia01 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Fayenatic london!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Fayenatic london: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year Fayenatic london!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Fayenatic london: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Jayadevp13 15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Also thank you for making those corrections on my talk page. Regards. - Jayadevp13 15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Fayenatic london!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Fayenatic london: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Jerm729 (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year Fayenatic london!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Fayenatic london: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 16:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Congregationalist categorisation

Hi, I see that you removed a couple of cats from Congregationalists. (remove unnecessary head category Category:Chalcedonian Christians which is...). While the rationale is true, unfortunately not all Protestants may be neatly categorised as Chalcedonian Christians. As it only takes 1 exception to disprove the rule, I don't see how it's possible to apply a blanket Chalcedonian cat to Protestants. Does it not become necessary to apply it surgically to those broad Protestant denominational families that are definitely Chalcedonian, leaving it out for the others? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In order to understand what categorisation would be required, please enlighten me: which Protestants are not Chalcedonian? I'm wondering whether it might it be easier or more useful to categorise non-Chalcedonians. Also, it would probably be more useful to categorise denominations rather than Christians. Cf. Category:Nontrinitarian denominations. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well all non-Trinitarians are, by defininition, also non-Chalcedonians. For that reason, the Category:Non-Chalcedonian Christians only includes those Christians who are Trinitarian but who are not Chalcedonian. So non-Chalcedonian Protestants would include J. Witnesses and LDS, Christian Scientists and Nontheist Quakers. I assume that you would view these denominational families as broadly Protestant. If not, then the problem that I've identified may not actually exist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would view those as sects/cults outside mainstream Christianity, so not Protestant. Looking at the nontrinitarian category, my first thought is that Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians might be "broadly Protestant" but perhaps I need to think that through – it might be sloppy thinking on the grounds that they look mainstream, even though their teaching would generally be considered heresy.

I spotted that LDS are not categorised as non-Trinitarian, so please follow up this edit. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sidenote the reason the LDS is not categorised as non-Trinitarian is becase GoodOl'Factory doesn't like the categorisationas he says that some LDS are Trinitarian. I don't know enough about LDS to disagree, despite how unlikely it apears at first sight. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case my objection doesn't matter. The Congregationalists category is a child of the Protestants category which can become a member of Chalcedonian Christians. Is that right? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, along with other Protestants. Do we need a category for Chalcedonian Christians at all? Where would it differ from Trinitarian Christians? – Fayenatic London 12:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It excludes all of Oriental Orthodoxy - see the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

ICAEW

Thanks, I understand you require published source, but in case of ICAEW membership recognition by ICAP, there is no published source you either need to rely on email which I have from ICAP or need to contact ICAP by yourself. As of ACCA I understand they are Chartered Certified Accountant, but in 1995 Privy Council in UK allowed ACCA members to call themselves Chartered Accountants, however ACCA recommends its members to call themselves Chartered Certified Accountants in order to distinguish themselves from others. Moreover, ACCA member can conduct audit of public limited companies in UK and whole of European Union under EU law. K.sipra4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.sipra4 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for review of an edit

Can you take a look at a recent addition to a discussion on the Talk page of the article on Vietnam? I think it is inappropriate in tone and language.CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it has already been reverted. Good call. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Category:Torpedo_bombers

Your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 6#Category:Torpedo bombers was for delete for both categories under discussion. The discussion, as I read it, seemed to be far closer to keep or no consensus, particularly regarding Category:Torpedo bombers, where a far stronger case was made for retention than for interceptors. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources I offered, including several specific encyclopedic books on the subject of torpedo bombers by title, make it clear that an aircraft's status as a torpedo bomber is a strong defining characteristic. By contrast, the delete votes referenced more amorphous claims regarding potential "category clutter", without indicating why this particular category would be relevant to that issue. I would suggest that, at a minimum, a more detailed explanation of the close be provided in the CfD. Please let me know if you have any other questions regarding my request. Alansohn (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have listed the rationale on the CfD page, including a link to the deletions in case this is helpful. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

CFD talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 22.
Message added 15:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposal to rename

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Water polo by year Hugo999 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks for the notification. – Fayenatic London 07:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:FayeNoEvil.jpg

I really want to remove this image from fuzao, but I would just need your approval. The image is not discussed in secondary sources, and I can't find an English one. Finding a Chinese one is hard; I tried searching it in Google without luck. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I agree, but please leave the text. I intended to add the PRC cover, and had forgotten until now.

You might be amused by the links at the end of Talk:Three_wise_monkeys#Trivia_section_of_epic_proportions. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed the image from article; tagged as "db-author". You have privileges, so you know what to do. George Ho (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. While we are on the subject, please see Talk:Fuzao where I have pasted links to earlier discussions about the track listings. Sorry, but you may have to undo one of your recent edits to that one. Most of the older albums still need to be re-done according to the pattern that was agreed. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Putting Chinese into Notes makes them small and hard to read. Also, there is not a sufficient consensus; there were just two of you. I can't do the unofficial "pattern" that was agreed without everyone else's approval. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on Your Admin-ship

Hi Fayenatic london, I only just realised that you have got your admin-ship! Well belated congratulations and I am glad. While I'm on it, a very belated Happy New Year too!! Best wishes - Audit Guy (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for both - Happy New Year to you too! – Fayenatic London 19:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

John 1:1

Hi Fayenatic. Unfortunately, you misunderstand the language of mathematicians. "Proof" is the Mathematical word for a (full or partial) "reasonable translation" as well as our explanation for thinking it is a correct translation. To prove something, we take a sentence, like "Tomorrow it will be sunny out". We then figure out what the words mean to the speaker, and we write down what we understood. For instance, even if I don't know what "sunny out" means, I know that "will be" means "to happen", so I have proved that the sentence "Tomorrow it will be sunny out" implies (partially translates to) "Tomorrow will happen". Since you simply misunderstood that "prove" means "partially translate" in the language of Math, I readded Goedel's translation.

By the way, Goedel's explanation is a little confusing to modern readers because Goedel believed that "Logic" and "Truth" are the exact same thing. He used "other worlds" to mean what we'd call "other possible events". He called people with different biologies or manners of speaking "beings of a different kind". And he called people who knew things that he didn't "beings of a higher kind". Destroyer-of-Words (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Destroyer-of-Words, thank you for this, but perhaps you misunderstand the language of theology. If you can show me Gödel's translation of the New Testament in which this verse of John's Gospel is translated as Gödel's ontological proof, I might agree with you. However, as there is no such translation, it is simply not appropriate to include this in a table of translations of a Bible verse. Note that the article is about Biblical studies (theology) rather than mathematics, and your observations are not germane to this category of articles.

If Godel's proof makes explicit reference to John 1:1, or you can cite reliable sources which make the connection between John 1:1 and the proof, you might more appropriately mention this in a new and separate section of the article. Otherwise, this suggestion appears to be original research, which Wikipedia does not publish (this is one of its core policies). – Fayenatic London 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Category:Latter Day Saint culture

Thank you for renaming Category:Latter Day Saint arts and culture to Category:Latter Day Saint culture; it was definitely needed, as was the further sub-cat'ing of that cat. Would you be willing to create yet additional related subcats of Category:Latter Day Saint culture, this time Category:LDS poetry & Category:LDS poets ? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have created Category:Latter Day Saint literature and Category:Latter Day Saint poets. If you think there is a need for Category:Latter Day Saint poetry, go ahead and create it, or leave me another note explaining what should go in it apart from the 2 anthologies which are currently in the literature category.

It is generally preferred to use matching names for articles and categories. Would it be wrong to rename the page Mormon literature as Latter Day Saint literature? – Fayenatic London 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the renaming you propose would be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Siam CFDS

Hi. You closed this CFDS for Category:Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Siam on 7 January, but the page still hasn't been processed by the bot. Did something go wrong? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, well done for getting that far. It was removed from the working page here. IMHO the editor who did that ought to have put it into the Opposed section on the Speedy page. Perhaps he intended to do so and forgot when something came up in real life. I'll remind him. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well he does not remember what exactly happened. I'll nominate it for a full CfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, that'll do nicely. – Fayenatic London 22:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Antonio José de Sucre

If you have time, would you mind reading my comment on the article Antonio José de Sucre at User Talk:Rothorpe? I need advice on how to proceed with a number of edits to this article by a non-native speaker of English. Apart from syntactical and word usage errors, it seems that some of the additions are unsourced. What do you recommend?CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my delay in replying. I agree with the advice given there. If some of the new material is particularly contentious, by all means tag it with {{fact}}, so that somebody wanting or able to improve the page will have specific guidance on where to start. Or look up specific templates to ask experienced translators to help. (WP:TRANSLATE?) For bios of living people, you can simply revert unsourced info, especially if it is potentially libellous. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I skimmed the page at WP:TRANSLATE, and was thinking about adding a template (is that the right word?) "Expand Spanish|name of article" but then I saw there was already one there at the top of the article. However, the date is February 2011. There is also a template "Unreferenced" with an old date. The material I was writing to you about was added on January 25, 2014. Does it make sense to put more recent dates for the two templates? By adding a more recent date to the "WP:TRANSLATE" template, would that be more likely to get the attention of a translator to work on that recently added material? Or shall I just leave the dates as they are? CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Congregationalist clergy

Hi Fayenatic. I have just closed the Cfd as "rename all". I don't think that we have Cat-a-Lot at Wikipedia, so do you happen to know someone with a script for mass-recategorisation? I'm now tagging the category talk pages with the cfd outcome but the actual changes to pages and subcategories might be bothersome. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (For reference: This CfD.) WP:CFDW is the place to list changes to be done by bots. At the top right of WP:CFD is a link to the Administrator instructions for that process. Let me know if you need more help! – Fayenatic London 22:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As I read it, there's no need to add notices on category pages with a "rename" outcome, only those with "keep" or "no consensus"; but they will do no harm. I see you have also been removing unnecessary head categories manually – thanks for your diligence! – Fayenatic London 23:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, too. The bot reacted immediately so I think we're done now. De728631 (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:African-American Methodist preachers

Hello - in a short while when the bots have done their work, would you be able to take a look through the (new) Category:African-American Methodist clergy to do the pruning you suggested was needed? (Also, I hope I have correctly interpreted the related pair of debates, but I would be glad if you would check that for me, too). Thanks! Splash - tk 23:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - all looks good, thanks, Splash. I did not have to remove any pages; a couple did not specify that the individuals were ordained, but as they had planted multiple churches the picture was clear enough to justify keeping them in the category. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Assistance on Article

Hi Fayenatic london, Can you give me a hand in this article Society of Business Practitioners? There is user who has disrupted the article with multiple edits which I am unsure how to auto undo to the previous version, except manually. If done manually, I'm worried that some of the Bot's fixes may be undone inadvertently. Would appreciate your help. Thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not checked whether there us anything valid in the anon edits, but you too can revert multiple edits if they are wrong - see WP:UNDO. – Fayenatic London 09:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, there were factual errors and the format was disrupted by the multiple edits. Anyway, I have managed to revert the edits to the previous version. Thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists by status

Hi Fayenatic - I'd appreciate it if you would take another look at the CFD for this category and give serious consideration to my counter-proposal to rename the category rather than merging/deleting. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and for drawing my attention, even though I'm not persuaded. – Fayenatic London 12:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Trident University International‎

Hi Fayenatic London, I could use some help at Trident University International‎. A user with several IP addresses keeps causing disruption to the article by removing valid content. Is it possible to request to semi protect the page for a short duration? --Audit Guy (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Fayenatic London 13:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions related to geography-related articles. This is really helpful. English Wikipedia has so many missing articles, it is incredible. Androoox (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting article protection

For the article: Saul, monthly vandalism keeps occurring -- Thnx -- ♣Jerm♣729 08:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not convinced that protection is warranted. Most of the recent anon edits to the page are vandalism but there have been some helpful ones, e.g. on 14 and 19 December. Having reviewed Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection, I'll leave it unprotected. – Fayenatic London 09:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's cool...Thnx anyway -- ♣Jerm♣729 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Day

Wishing Fayenatic london/Archive11 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Herald talk with me 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

New Delhi

I just notice an edit war at New Delhi. I don't know any other administrator who could take a look at it.CorinneSD (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have stopped for now. In any case the material added & then removed was a copy of a table from Chief Minister of Delhi and did not need to be repeated in the New Delhi article. – Fayenatic London 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wetland

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I just saw an edit to the article on Wetland in which an editor added a legal definition of "wetland" to the lede/lead. Probably because of that addition, he/she added the phrase "In general terms" before "A wetland" at the very beginning of the article. I think that the addition of the legal U.S. government definition might be a useful piece of information for the article but that it does not belong in the lede/lead. It could be placed later in the article or even in a note at the end of the article. Also, wouldn't you agree that the definition at the beginning of any WP article is general? It is defined in more detail after the first sentence. So, I think "In general terms" is not needed. Since I don't know where to put that legal U.S. definition, or how to put it in a note, I left it. I thought you might be able to decide whether it should be there at all, and, if so, where to place it.CorinneSD (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I have improved it. I also reworked the editor's other contribution at Hydric soil. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have improved both articles. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Squamish redux

Discussion with Skookum1

Hi, you were the deciding admin on the CfD about this unworkable title last year; in the meantime the intent of the outcome-category i.e. Category:Squamish people (being for the ethnic group) has been used to be for "people who are Squamish" and the Category:Squamish title re-created by someone who waded in out of the blue, claims to have read the CfD, doesn't know anything about either the people or the town who share this name, and is now being glib about having caused problems by their unilateral action.... I don't think this should have to go to CfD again, "we did that already", and how is it that a rogue interloper can overturn so easily something that was so difficult to achieve? ". If other editors have a problem with this action, please let them speak for themselves, which we are all capable of doing." , quoting what was said to me this morning, is coming from a person who IGNORED all that was said in the CfD, and doesn't give a shit about reopening this can of worms. I note that all this was precipitated by ill-informed people changing the Skwxwu7mesh title to Squamish people, someone then using that to (very rapidly) justifying a speedy of Category:Skwxwu7mesh (the diacriticalized version of that) to Category:Squamish. All decisions made by people not from the area and ignorant of the complexities involved. Canadian and BC editors were onside about "Category:Squamish" not being viable for the ethnic group category because of hte confusion with the name of the town of Squamish, which is by far the PRIMARYTOPIC. User:Uysvidi ignores all that previous discussion and now points to other editors for input, even though she ignored all the other editors in the CfD. This is ridiculous; it shouldn't be another CfD, it should be an arbitration or mediation, or a rollback of all her edits based on this category creation - there are now articles for places in North Vancouver and Vancouver which have "Category:Squamish" in them, which most BC readers will take as meaning a category about the town of Squamish. Noting recent decisions that category name decisions should refer to the original creators...in which case then the old diacriticalized form of Category:Skwxwu7mesh should be restored, and there will be no ambiguity as to its meaning. Anyways as the decider of that CfD, I don't know if you wash your hands of this or not, and I'm non plussed to find again that what had been some kind of consensual order re complex issues pushed over by someone from outside the area, invoking Wiki "logic" without ever working on any of the articles affected. Madness. And not a small bit of axe-grinding either.....in my opinion, that is....Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) @Skookum1: This might have been dealt with speedily, if you had just contacted either Good Ol'Factory or me, instead of impatiently writing to us both AND starting Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Squamish. Now we will have to wait and see what happens.

I do wish you could contain your anger and focus your energies. Fewer words = more clarity. – Fayenatic London 11:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I didn't have to hear the same obstinate, half-informed ideas brought over time and again as is typically the case, I wouldn't have to repeat myself, or try to spell things out in detail over and over. How many times do you have to hit a dull nail on the head before it's flush with the wood? All the things she's bringing forward right now I told her about already, she dismissed them, told me what I thought didn't matter, and that she's entitled to her opinion. What she's really saying is she's determined to underscore her ignorance and has no intentions of learning about the subject matter she's screwing with.Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: if you think your long repetitions are effective in the end: wake up. The more you go on and on, the more people ignore you. I know you have some valid ideas, but your approach really turns people off. Ever heard of TLDR? Honestly, I suggest you look for someone who can give you some face-to-face counselling on communication. Show them some of the arguments you've had here on Wikipedia, and they can probably help you learn How to Win Friends and Influence People. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

more discussion with Skookum1

@Skookum1: I mean it sincerely. You don't have to reply to me, but I hope you will act on it. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Why do people find a scant few hundred words so difficult to wrap their heads around? Why do they continue to repeat their own assumptions and errors without actually looking into the background of the issues and learning about the subject at hand? Why do they apply some guidelines and ignore other guidelines, and cite one convention while ignoring others? Why do they act on "one" (false) notion and move an article or a category without actually knowing anything about the subject?? Why can't they admit to their own errors and want to make the length of my responses explaining WHY they are in error a reason to pointedly disregard and shove aside the facts they clearly don't know and apparently don't want to learn??? There's an inevitable RM at Squamish people to bring it back into line with name-conventions for Canadian First Nations ethnographic groups, and as it happens I'm preparing one at Mi'kmaq people to move it back to Mi'kmaq (also moved without discussion and also needless to have ever added "people"), and there are good grounds to dispense with "tribe" on the Mohawk and Blackfoot categories.....the problem here isn't me, it's people acting on guidelines out of context, not knowing the subject matter, not taking time to look around and realize established (if uncodified) conventions were working just fine, and ..... wanting simple answers to complex questions. Making my writing style an issue is not in any policy on how to decide RMs or CfDs that I'm aware of; TLDR is only an essay, and as commented on by some it's often used as an excuse. That I'm the target of so much defensive responses by people threatened by challenges to their attention spans amounts to, as I've pointed out, an actual NPA and a complete lack of good faith into why an expert in the area under debate would be trying to explain to people what they need to know. But, to me, apparently just don't want to, and instead of learning about facts that might change their minds want to cling to some guideline or other which brings them comfort...but which does nothing to resolve the issues at hand. Nor does pointing at someone saying "they talk too much, I don't have the patience/ability to understand them, so it's OK to ignore what they have to say". But when someone says short conclusions based on guidelines acting without reference to what the facts/reality is, that's perfectly OK and too often decides things wrongly; which is what happened in the main article RM (in only 7 days) and also in the non-logic of the person who speedied the category last year, and in Usyvidi's non-logic in re-creating that mistake. To actually find google results now favouring Skwxwu7mesh over Squamish (just as you'd asked for last year) and then hearing that google results shouldn't be listened to.....and nor should I be listened to either....can you feel my frustration??!! and indeed, a sense affront to my own good graces? the irony that she herself created Category:Chumash people (now in speedy by my own nomination to become the individual Chumash people directory rather than the ethno directory she created it as) is really quite rich. That irony aside, my main complaint about people making article and category moves without bothering to read up on the material and background is a big, big problem, and this isn't the first time that my efforts to explain that very material and background have been degraded as "TLDR"....they might as well say that about the articles themselves, and their talkpages, since it's clear they haven't read THEM, either.Skookum1 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC) the full catalogue of error re "FOO people" has yet to be compiled, but note this RM and the main main-ethno articles which Kwami added "people" to when not needed; and which none of their ethno categories have...it was only because of the namespace collision with the Squamish town article that Category:Squamish can't work; but as with others that luckily haven't been changed, or defense of the endonym titles on the main articles has prevented (c.f Talk:St'at'imc re the RM there wherre Kwami had moved it to Lillooet people, and then the dangers of a CFDS to Category:Lillooet. That danger still exists re Category:Okanagan though as with Category:Kamloops and Category:Nanaimo the geographic MOSTCOMMON usages are firmly in place.... the use of endonyms in the primary ethnographic categories was, as I will repeat again, in no small part precisely because of such naming confusions. Add in the "common anglicisms" argument that Kwami made a tubthump for a while, and you have untenable results....some of them extremely arcane like Bella Coola people re the Nuxalk (which shouldn't be a dab page but has been since 2008); as with other case, the primary meaning of "Bella Coola" is the town/area and the term is in fact itself from another language (Heiltsuk). Or worse yet, had his Thompson people main article change survived, Category:Thompson people. Those positing the use of "First Nation(s)" as a substitute in titles are also ignoring another early IPNA convention, which mostly stands across article titles; the "FOO First Nation" will refer to the band government, or if "FOO Nation" may refer to a tribal council if not a band government, and that "FOO" is more than enough for a title, without any disambiguation needed, provided that the form of "FOO" is not in conflict with a different usage that is the PRIMARYTOPIC as is the case with Squamish, Okanagan, Chilcotin, Nanaimo and countless other examples. Ours was a coordinated effort years ago, now buried in archives and many of those who helped author it moved on, either within Wikipedia (PeterForsyth, NorCalHistory) or into real life (Phaedriel, OldManRivers, Murderbike and others); and now what is happening is that every once in a while someone wades in with only partial knowledge and a favourite guideline they're trying to apply....and causes the very confusions we were trying to avoid/take into account. Shallow-knowledge decision making/action-taking is the problem, not my trying to deepen that knowledge and give context to the problems being caused, and bad precedents being set.....and bear in mind, that if the CfD is "no consensus" and Category:Squamish is what's decided on, I have no choice but to re-RM this and/or take it to mediation/arbitration somewhere upstairs; or just do as Uysvidi did and ignore process and start the category over on my own and.....catch even more shit for doing what is right than i have already.Skookum1 (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I know you are frustrated too. Email/talkpage communication has its limits. That's why I suggested you talk to someone about it. It doesn't have to be an expensive "communication consultant". Canada has lots of nice people, so I'm sure you can find someone. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I won't spend time on critiquing your appraisal of the national myth as if it were true; Canadians are argumentative, controlling, contrarian and often arrogant about being Canadian; th reason we say "sorry" so much, which Americans find so amusing and "quaint" is not because of good manners, but because we're used to having our heads bitten off for nothing. My problem is not psychiatric, it is in being a literate and prolix person around people needing things to be post-literate and terse/laconic....and who, if they'd actually read the subject matter, would be more qualified to have their two bits heard in "consensus decision making" than they are at present. It seems you understand my points; can you boil them down to twenty-word lines for Bushranger and others to apply their limited attention spans to so that they might understand? Even when I do write in point form, I'm ignored, and starting to think of an essay titled WP:Accuse Skookum1 of TLDR, AGF and/or NPA in order to refuse to act on what he is recommended. I'm hearing it so much it's really tiresome.....making me the problem instead of tackling the issues I raised was certainly Kwami's gambit, and has been used by others since......nowhere in decision-making guidelines does it say to ignore people with meaningful things to say, or is "I have a short attention span" (which is really what invoking TLDR says) a reason to comment on any CfD or RM or anything. But as with everything, mis-use or guidelines, fake wikiquette and covert personal attacks take the place of actually learning about the subject and acting wisely. What did you think of those google results, by the way???? And of all the people involved in this name game, how many of them have worked on any related article .... ever??Skookum1 (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look into them. By the way, did you mean to imply that I closed the previous discussion without respect? – Fayenatic London 14:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit I was referring to. – Fayenatic London 08:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

what's a "key" for categories

Noting this wondering what purpose "Nation" serves...noting the parallel one for Language, if it's about what kind of category this is, it should be "Government". "Nation" is a politically volatile word in Canada, and not just in terms of indigenous identity/governance and band names.Skookum1 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It was to sort the wide-scope articles to the top of the category page at category:Squamish people, which currently lists the contents starting with:

Squamish people

+

Squamish culture

History of the Squamish people

Squamish language

Squamish Nation

... before the articles on biographies and locations. "Government" should not be the sort key for Squamish Nation because that word does not appear in the page name. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Merel Witteveen

Hi, As far as I know, Merel Witteveen has not taken up windsurfing as a serious sport activity. Therefore i have removed the category female windsurfer. If you have other info please let me know.NED33 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for also removing Category:Dutch windsurfers which I was working from. – Fayenatic London 17:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Fayenatic. I'd just like to give a quick thanks for your improvement of the Lister Community School page. It looks much better now and plenty of citations to match ;-) I added a load of information when I started editing but like most students, I didn't cite very well. I guess that's what caused me to emphasise verifications now. Thanks anyway :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lister Community School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Lister (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Can you leave a comment here please? Thanks

Also take a look at this discussion on the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 February 2014‎

Well, that (Halo = MilSef) seems clear already. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Concerning neutrality

Hello, The article: Dating the Bible has me concerned. Apparently, there are citations needed for the dates of the New Testament and not the Old Testament or Apocryphal. The issue has been discussed before apparently, and I think it's time for a change in the article. I am hoping to remove the needed citations for the sake of neutrality. Jerm729 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that citations are necessary, and it shouldn't be difficult to provide them. At least some of the dates have been there since the first version in 2003. [1] That editor is not very active and does not accept email messages, so there's not much point asking his source.

I suggest that dates should be cited from both evangelical and liberal sources, as these will tend to favour early and late estimates respectively. I might be able to help when I get to a suitable library. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It be good to get a source that's ".edu" or do you prefer scholar books? Jerm729 (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of scholarly books, but if you can find an .edu source online that should be fine, thanks. – Fayenatic London 08:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, Just thought this might interest you ;-) Audit Guy (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Fayenatic london:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Belated congratulations

I just noticed you closing a CFD (on a CFD page that happens to be on on my watchlist, due to an unrelated CDF). I never noticed you were made admin. I know it's been a couple years, but congratulations; I've always liked your work as an editor. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Great apes intelligence

I closed this discussion. It would be great if you could modify it as you suggested. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am One of Many has done a good job on it – thanks!– Fayenatic London 13:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kuki Baptist Convention

Hi, I'm confused with your actions at Kuki Baptist Convention? Existence has absolutely nothing to do with notability, nor does a passing mention in a very poor source. Am I missing something here? Are you planning to develop it because, if not, then I'll send the thing to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought the coverage in the book was enough to establish notability. No, I was not planning to develop it further. Go ahead and nominate for AfD if you think that is appropriate. – Fayenatic London 17:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. A brief mention in a single poor source from a publisher that regularly produces rubbish doesn't meet GNG, so I'll do that thing. Obviously, I do a WP:BEFORE prior to PRODing stuff ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I didn't check the credentials of the publisher; I just saw that the subject was well covered in the book. Your allegation against the publisher may have more weight than your claim that it makes merely a "passing mention", but I see [2] that its publications are quite widely cited in this encyclopedia.

Don't take it personally, Sitush; I didn't check who had PRODded it. Not everybody is as thorough as you; last time I reviewed User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary, I rescued half a dozen pages that were due for deletion that day. – Fayenatic London 17:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not taking it personally. It is unusual for me to find something de-PRODed but, hey, it happens. Mittal stuff is cited a lot and, yes, not all of it is bad. However, much of it is and that one seems to be an example. If nothing else, it needed a decent editor. And it doesn't constitute multiple independent reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty, although you are undermining your previous argument now. Anyway, as you have not AfD'd the page after all, I have added another source. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1

Why the block? What exactly did he do? And you locked his talk page so he can't even appeal the block. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. He probably won't like me for it, but I intended it as a gift from a friend. As for what he did, his contributions speak for themselves. See here and follow the links. His behaviour has been extraordinary. Technically, I would justify my action as a proportionate response to disruptive editing, but the guy obviously feels labelled already - he continually writes about that. I think a short Wikibreak would be good for other editors, good for the encyclopaedia but most of all good for him. – Fayenatic London 16:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen the comments at BrownHairedGirl. I thought that it had to do with the RMs currently going. I think a better blocking summary could have been used. Take a break with no context makes it look like a cool down block. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-block discussions with Skookum1 about moves and other editors

Kwami So the block is over, within hours I'd caught up and got back to RMs and guideline debates I was excluded from in rapid fashion; see my user contributions. I'll save my comments on your action against me for later; right now, if fair is fair (and I know from harsh experience that Wikipedia is not fair), then my chief baiter and harrasser needs a block too until he curbs his tongue and his endless "make Skookum1 the subject, not the issue" tactic; see Talk:Heiltsuk–Oowekyala_language#where_in_the_sources_is_this_name_with_an_endash_instead_of_a_hyphen.3F here; and note on the discussion at, I think, where he brands me "idiotic" (for talking about guidlines he doesn't like) and in a good couple of dozen RMs he's posted something to the effect of "no one would accuse you of being rational" (i.e. you are irrational)......ongoing personal assaults of a very different kind from my pointing out errors in people's guideline-quoting and logic, which are always called "personal attacks"...there are actual insults. "is there nothing that can be done about this rebellious priest?" to quote the Bard. Or is he immune from blocks and other punishments for some strange reason? Very strange given his track record of nastiness; mere obfuscation and mindgames is par for the course, but he's out of line, far more than me. I may be more voluble; he's actually mean.Skookum1 (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Welcome back. I haven't looked at the RMs. I'm not stalking you; when I helped on Cyde's page, that was because I was watching it already. Anyway, I have done the move requested at the page linked above. It seems to me that you also indulge in endless discussion about yourself and other people's motive. On that page at least, it was completely unnecessary and pointless. You have some good points to say, so please just make them, once, and preferably concisely, instead of going on and on. Please confine yourself on talk pages to direct suggestions to improve the encyclopaedia. – Fayenatic London 06:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Tell him that bit about not just people's motives but treating them derisively as is his wont. Too often, and he's still got his back up over losing last year's RMs, which resulted from him speeding things in the face of former RMs, which as someone else noted in at least one them was ANI-worthy if they weren't six months old. About the one you just reverted, thank you, he claims he made it in haste to deal with my undiscussed move and had family over and wasn't paying attention, the reality is that he could not revert it so he did a work-around and used an endash; nobody does an endash as a typo, let's put it that way. I had moved it to Heiltsuk-Wuikyala in the wake of the Oweekeno-Wuikinuxv RM, as Wuikyala is the corresponding form. If readers are really to be given respect over the demands of specialists, then consider a child in school there, or anywhere, learning about "Wuikyala" and then finding a title which is an older form.... "because the sources etc".....are you following me? "Sources" over so many years old in teh case of such living, changing cultures now under rebirth and reasserting their cultures and names that are deliberately distinct from those adopted/adapted by non-natives, are really beside the point; Sources since those changes matter more, as TITLE clearly says. In this case, had you not had moved that back, since he was waffling over an RM - which he didn't file in the first place because he knew he might lose - I was going to file an Heiltsuk-Wuikyala change (language is not necessary because the ending means a language, same as with Kwak'wala in a related language, but for now I'll let it go; "sources" should learn to get with the times, so they can't be used to perpetrate the past. BTW when he moved what is now Wuikinuxv, he moved it to "Owikeno" which is one of countless different spellings; it's used as you can wee in the Wuikinuxv RM only for teh name of the lake, and a point on an island a good 50km away. What "sources" he's referring to he never says; and never looks beyond linguistics material...apparently the older the better. HM, a wall of text, seems I can just win at keeping necessary details to shorter forms; for that it would mean taking out prepositions and articles, it seems. Even when I fled point-by-point items as I did at the end of the Squamish people RM, I was attacked and condemned AGAIN for opening my mouth at all, despite Themightquill's speaking up on my behalf, and also pointing out that others were in support of my proposed change (he's anotehr Canadian...>kwami is too someone told me but he's an Albertan, which bespeaks a whole different attitude towards both natives and other Canadians). Motives impugned here?; no, telling it like it is - his allegation that the endash was somehow MY fault instead of a deliberate act to avoid an RM is the truth; just as with the substitution of a different apostrophe in Nisga'a people (another special keying) to get around Nisga'a, which had been the original title (there had been a Nisga'a people with the regular apostrophe), and put it in his "FOO people" mandatory form, as he maintains it is. But why should NCL have exclusive mandate about people/group articles when it's explicitly about languages. I've been reading Wikilawyering and other pages while you had me muzzled; interesting how many guidelines are regularly ignored, like tha tone about behavour, and certain ones become a tubthump irrespective towards all others. Complications about in Wikipedia; but he's not complicated, he's just annoying. And regularly derisive and uses overtly insulting terms ("idiotic" etc). He has a long leash it seems;....... The reason I mentioned my usercontributions has to do with the number of articles I've worked on or other RMs I have going where replies were needed; I'm still not caught up yet. This insulting blame-it-on-Skookum1 thing on Heiltsuk-Oowekyala was annoying, but also included MORE personal attacks. The "toxic environment around here", which Usyvdi describes it as on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#What the guidelines say, is not toxic because of me, it is toxic because of him, and his constant attempts to defray discussion by wheedling, evasion, rule-changing, getting aroudn rules, and insulting anyone who disputes what he does or says. "this is not the way Wikipedia works" is something maunus mouthed off at me about something else; Kwami has used ONE guideline completely disproportionate to its value, and has been = oh shit, any suitable word is a personal attack huh? This is worse than Parliament, where you can't call someone a bald-faced liar even when they are. Skookum1 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Re Cydebot and related current RMs BTW I haven't even seen your response on Cyde's page yet, I don't have it watchlisted. The issue of who programmed that bot to move that one main article, and only that main article, bears a lot on the validity of both CfDs that followed; the whole cluster of articles and categories around that particular place and the people in question has to be addressed at some point; MoveReview is not the place, from what I can see of how that works; and it has a 7-day or so deadline right? Not that I'm not online all the time lately, but if not for that deadline and the concept of "stale", then people with interest in certain articles who aren't around all the time will have a chance to ask for reviews, and other such similar processes; the PRIMARYTOPIC=town vs people who have a current name with a "traditional"/incorrect anglicization or adaption is very much alive on Talk:Bella Bella, British Columbia#Requested Move and Talk:Lillooet, British Columbia#Requested move and their respective dab pages, which are in the same RMs.Skookum1 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC) So....it was programmed by User:Kauffner who took part in the first RM and also in the 2013 CfD. So how is this not a conflict of interest? To target only one of many categories with endonym names that were, at the time, in the "FOO people" format as speedied? To me that's an abuse of power and goes straight against standing conventions for the parallel categories; and in the many of last year's RMs it was pointed out that category names don't have to match main article titles; that he would move it to (what is to a BCer) a clearly confusing category title with big PRIMARYTOPIC and disambiguation problems evinces what I have to say about people not familiar with a topic and its variables not being useful, and often destructive, being given equal weight over "local sources".....that CFDS/Cydebot programming was aggressive and uncalled for; mini-RM (all 7 days of it!!) after six years of stability and long, drawn-out name discussions from the start is "how wikipedia works" but to me that's NOT how Wikipedia should work. Abuse of admin powers and pulling ropes behind the scenes and custom-redesigning guidelines for given agendas - and cheats around process such as the endash and that special apostrophe mentioned above, and more, are all highly questionable. I know adminship isn't about knowledge, it's about sounding harmless and obsequious...but I see people abusing the powers it confers on them all the time. Be that as it may, in this case a speedy CfD in the wake of a very short and controversial namechange is highly out of line. Where do I take this - all of it, the original name discussions and the conventions which allowed/tolerated the original endonym title, the two RMs, the CFDS and two subesequent CfDs....seems to me regular process was very irregular; like Talk:Okanagan people#Requested move the first RM should have been relisted, and not suddenly shoved onto Cydebot by one of the participants. There is no policy at all making that mandatory despite the pretense that there is....wikilawyering on an extreme application of a narrow view of one guideline. Someone's gotta write WP:COMMONSENSE someday; lateral thinking is much in short supply in Wikipedia these days it seems; much was different in the days of the "old consensus"....allowances were made for special circumstances and considerations, not t hrown out the window with the insistence that guidelines shoudl be strict and apply everywhere....Skookum1 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) I can't see your point. Is it your view that someone who participated in a 2010 renaming is conflicted-out of commenting in a CfD three years later? Doesn't make sense. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC) As for Sorbs->Sorbian people Category:Sorbs the line comes in one post: Rename the rest as nominated, but list the following categories at WP:CFD/W/M for manual removal of non-biographical articles: Category:Hashemites, Category:Bosniaks, Category:Celts, Category:Crimean Tatars, Category:Jews, Category:Manchus, Category:Serbs, Category:Sorbs was as far as I understand that only about the removal of articles about individuals and moving them to the new category name; that almost all but Croats and Serbs were so treated has wound up with more problems with the "FOO people" = individuals who are FOO" in teh same category as articles about the ethnicity itself, and its history etc. WP:CONSISTENCY? Where?? I found that while looking for articles on "FOOs" per that WP:NCET discussion I linked to. so are articles like Germans, Americans, Norwegians etc supposed to be about the ethnicity or the people as individuals??Skookum1 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) You probably know there is a guideline at WP:ETHNICGROUP. I have not followed this matter so I do not know if it has changed much over the years. The examples at the end of your post are nationalities rather than ethnicities, but I have not looked into whether the naming convention for these may be different. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) BTW This can be closed "not moved" see my comments in my final post; I don't know how to withdraw it myself. Maybe I'll finally get around to writing Cassiar Gold Rush which was one of the "Big Five" of BC's gold rush and seminal in the earliest days of the province, its heyday was the 1870s; incredible story, almost as distant and bizarre as the Klondike but on a smaller scale, and involving river-access conflicts with the US related to the Alaska Boundary Dispute (another article I've worked on a lot).Skookum1 (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)  Done – Fayenatic London 14:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AGF/NPA on Chipewyan/Denesuline

I've been staying away from most of these, since support votes are coming in. But this was not just CIVIL and AGF and pretty much an NPA, but also very childish. It seems that targeting me, having proven effective in having RMs and CfDs closed against my proposals, is so succesful a tactic, that it's being trotted out again. Sure he's keeping his post short; but it's demeaning as hell and very much against guidlines to vote on personal grounds...... see here for what he said, and my response. Do you see my point? Opposition to my proposals from this group (NCLers) is very clearly personal, and now IMO it's becoming a tactic, just like I was targeted on Heiltsuk-Oowekyala as being why the endash happend, instead of admitting he did it that way to avoid an RM....whatever; I've said my piece on the discussion on NCET for now (Uysvdi hasn't deigned to answer my questions; silence is its own answer for not having any answers; or expressing contempt for the person asking). The guidelines are not being discussed by JorisV = he's only discussing and it's super-tiresome.Skookum1 (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1,000 characters there, 1,300 here just to complain... why can't you see that the way you communicate is counter-productive? Read again our discussion a few sections up. I recommended you to seek advice from a communications counsellor, and you thought I was accusing you of needing psychiatric help! Nothing of the kind. Just sit with someone who can look you in the eye, go through a few of your past interactions as case studies, and show you how you might interact with other people in a way that is winsome instead of alienating them. – Fayenatic London 15:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

this is getting ridiculous

When will the madness stop? I get patronized, my writing and efforts insulted, and I'm given an NPA warning by one of the group who refuses to have the proper discussion I always try to have; and others who do worse go unpunished and unthreatened. Once upon a time Wikipedians were an open group of minds, who weren't insecure about reading long points-of-information and who actually responded to questions. I've tried to engage the guidelines discussion on NCET with cogent, clear questions, and have been pointedly ignored - apparently as a show of contempt (and don't say I'm questioning their motives when my own motives are regularly grilled and insulted). See here which to me is a clear abuse of an admin's position and also favoritism and.....hypocritical. I can't find the hostile comments she herself made; I think montanabw may have deleted that whole section from his talkpage, or it's in his archives; or deleted from her own talkpage, as she's done before when I tried to raise with her the very issues on NCET she refuses to answer to. They're out there somewhere. Unlike some people, I don't make stuff up; or deny what I've said.

Perhaps she has no answers, but to me it's anti-AGF to remain silent on straightforward question, or in reply to points of information on questions and issues she herself raised; instead she uses a warning template. In the days of the "old consensus", a lot of wisdom and patience were shown and a very broad collective mind were at work; now I see a campaign to drive me from Wikipedia by a certain group of editors who regard me as intruding on their turf and pointing out the flaws in their their logics, and their guidelines. I don't want to take this to ANI, I'm sick of process, and of people targeting me and my writing instead of even making an attempt to respect my input. I also don't want to spend half a day looking for the comments she made that I remember all too well as hostile and accusatory, other than the childish "get a life" deletion of my points about "FOO people" which I tried to make to her.

Others do understand I have valuable things to say; but it seems that WP:BAITing me in RM discussions with AGF and soft-or-hard pedalled criticisms is now an established tactic. Proper discussion? When will t hey start answering questions instead of launching more putdowns in the course of what should be discussing the actual points at hand? And here I am, winding up giving you another "wall of text" - I've broken this into two paragraphs to ameliorate that. In all the time this has been going on, I've been creating articles and expanding others. Harassment of this kind for my writing style, of all things given this whole encyclopedia is a writing project, is inane. Alleging personal attacks against me while saying nothing about those made much worse against me is getting way out of control.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: Even though you don't have any track record in taking my advice, let me try one more piece. Quit saying anything about anybody's behaviour. You are not able to do so objectively, and your every attempt simply winds people up and results in less ever-decreasing respect for you.

I was going to set up a separate sub-page of my talk page for you so that you don't swamp it. However, the way you are heading, that may no longer be necessary, because unless you reform your behaviour markedly and very soon, I can foresee that you will be blocked for a long period or indefinitely. If you can't collaborate effectively, you will have to leave. And that would be a shame, because you work hard and do some good work here.

So, Just talk about the content. Nothing else. – Fayenatic London 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I saw the word "ridiculous" on my watchlist, and I thought I'd come see what it was about. After lengthy reading of more than a little text (and this coming from me, well-known to possibly have a slight penchant for verbosity : )

So anyway, I thought I should note two things -

• 1.) From personal experience, people tend to not read the entirety of a wall of text. One of the first things they teach in writing classes is "know your audience". I won't claim to be even fairly good about this myself, but if even "I" was tempted to not read the lengthy text, it might well be worth considering working on ways to be more concise.
• 2.) User:Fayenatic london is absolutely correct. In a discussion about content, try to focus on discussing the content, not the contributor(s). If there is behaviour worth looking into, then consider posting a short note with a link at WP:AN or one of its subpages as apppropriate. Otherwise it can become what some might call "more heat than light".

And just so it's said, I don't need a recap or update of events, I've read well enough I think. I merely thought it might be helpful for you to hear it from someone else (as positive reinforcement, at the very least). ymmv, of course.

Happy editing : ) - jc37 17:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Places to find work

Thanks for following up on my comment. If you want a change of pace, Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs is usually interesting. If only gets updated every week or so, but I love 70,000 character stubs. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm! What do we do, just de-stub if it's valid work, otherwise revert? – Fayenatic London 19:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I generally remove the sub template with a comment like past a stub or list and not a stub (since many of these are lists). Oh, watch out for the proteins which have extensive references and tiny amounts of content. I have had to revert in a few cases, since this is sometimes the result of a copyvio. You can get a feel for these since the text was added in one shot and the flow is not right for Wikipedia. Usually a search will get your to the copyrighted web page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Category:2010s rock song stub"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2014/March#Category:2000s_rock_song_stubs_split regarding Category:2010s rock song stubs in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop Nomination of My Pages

Discussion with Vineet Gupta

Hi, Kindly stop nominating my newly created Categories as you are creating mess again. As I have created separate Portal:Laws in India and current Categories are really under really message about Laws of India. Thus, moving categories from old to new ones. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineetgupta22 (talk • contribs) Hi, thanks for being open about your identity, and your objectives. Please advise, what led you to start building a portal? In any case, the category section of the portal should select existing categories. The old ones are in a structure that is comprehensive, and consistent with other nations. Instead of that, you have been building a new parallel and selective set of categories, and removing some pages from the existing category hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Hi, thanks for writing back. Purpose of Creating Separate Portal - Laws in India are very large as they cannot be fit in a box of Categories. India has a recorded legal history starting from the Vedic ages and some sort of civil law system may have been in place during the Bronze Age and the Indus Valley civilization. So, I started Created Project to give proper structure to the Laws in India, for creating a proper structure be must know what things are done and what things are not done for that created a Portal to track things. While Creating the Portal all the Categories, Articles and other things can be maintained other one roof and would be easy to do things. Purpose of Creating Separate Categories - People around the world doesn't know real status of Laws in India. For instance see Category:Parliament of India, which has numerous articles and sub-categories. According the Laws in India, Parliament of India contains only three things. President of India, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The old categories are really messy having un-orgainesed categories. I am just trying to organize them as they appear in Law. You can view the New Categories are the way to cleaning mess and while moving articles one by one is a long process but the best thing to avoid overlapping. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Hi, If you want to provide links to selected laws, then just do that. On your portal page, make a list of the law pages that are contemporary and most useful/important. There is no need to remove pages from existing categories, as you did, or to create a parallel category structure, which is unhelpful. For instance, simply link to the List of Presidents of India, instead of setting up a new category to hold that one page alone. – Fayenatic London 22:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Hi, I fully agree with your view. As there are two ways to clean the pages/categories in Wikipedia as I have understand they are: 1. Edit/Draw your New parallel and when the New parallel is good enough you delete the old one. 2. Move each article one by one as it solves the Purpose of parallel deleting and maintaing new also. It seems that you are in favor of 1st Idea and I am favor of 2nd Idea. While going through 1st Idea the work is more painful and lengthy enough. As doing with second it might look un-organised but after some time looks more learn way to do things. Thus request you kindly provide 5-6 days to me to move all the articles under new categories and then view things. I have change the signature as recommended. Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC) You have not explained any need to change the categories. What you seem to want is an outline of key pages. Just build it, as a selective choice of links on your portal page. Please do not make any more changes to categories until you have more experience here. – Fayenatic London 23:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks OK. I would not move Categories Pages from now onwards but continue to build it as selective choice of links to portal as recommended by you. I have no issues in that. Now request you kindly resolve the cfd templates from my newly created categories, so they would not be deleted. Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry but no - the discussions must run their course, and the closer will implement the outcome. On the other hand, if you consent to putting the pages back where they came from, we can implement that without delay under rule WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 23:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I can provide you the consent only on 1 condition that my category pages created doesn't get deleted. I will link them as the method provided by you again as no-issues in that but if they would be part of deletion discussion then i will wait for conclusion and do my work side by side. As I need some time to complete my work to correct things, so everybody like it the new way. Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC) On the contrary, Vineetgupta22, I am seeking your consent to deletion of the categories. They are anomalies at the moment. For example, the old Category:Constitution of India is part of Category:Constitutions by country; why would India be the only country to have a category starting with "The" (viz. your Category:The Constitution of India)? Can you not even consent to deleting Category:List of Presidents of India? They will all undoubtedly be deleted. If you consent then we could just do it straight away. – Fayenatic London 07:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Hi, I fully agree with you again that the difference with Category:Constitution of India and Category:The Constitution of India are same and would look similar. I am moving the contents from Constitution of India to The Constitution of India when the Page Constitution of India is cleanup then either I would move page "The Constitution of India" to "Constitution of India" or redirect "Constitution of India" to "The Constitution of India". The ultimate goal to maintain category as per Rules of the Land and not as desire by peoples from different segment. As it will make easy to understand the Law. Another thing I would like to tell you that I am an Advocate and an Law Books Publisher in India and a Programmer too, I have already created Client base Application and Website in PHP and might be new on wikipedia and that's why taking the role of creating nice Portal:Laws in India. As my social obligation to provide and organized Laws of India. At this point, I know that you will not understand what I am trying to do but your will appreciate much after things are done as Organized Manner. And you will definitely want to organize all other portal in clean and nice way which would be understand easily. I will again try to explain things, if you open the Category:Presidents of India and view the pages linked Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Basappa Danappa Jatti, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, etc. all are ex-presidents of India and not Presidents of India so they must go to the Category of ex-Presidents of India not in Presidents of India. Whether you view that from English or Law view point both current categorization is totally wrong. I am just moving each article to proper Category then going to restore them. Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Hi, To show what I am planning to do. I had organized single Category:Presidents of India and now Category:Indian President is empty it can be deleted as no issues in that. Now open Category:Presidents of India and now open Category:List of Presidents of India which is an sub-category of Category:Presidents of India. Now, the Category:List of Presidents of India explains things correctly, now it cannot be deleted as it is the part of Organized and linked to old Category:Presidents of India. I had just organized things correctly as Category:Presidents of India have only two article linked one President of India and another current President Pranab Mukherjee. I have linked the Presidents of India to my Portal so that a proper watch can be maintained, if any body added/edit/move article to the category and it would be checked and moved to proper category in portal. I have not put the page Category:Indian President for deletion but you can now delete it as the purpose is resolved and also have to remove from CFD of Category:List of Presidents of India, if you think it is appropriate and if not kindly let me know the reason for not removal of CFD. Thanks, Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC) You have not understood how categories are used. Look at other countries in Category:Presidents by country for example, and you will see that we do not distinguish current and former office-holders. I am going to place a formal notice on your page that you must desist from changing categories, otherwise you will be blocked. If you want to set up your own website, that is fine, but if you want to contribute here, you must collaborate instead of forming and implementing your own ideas. – Fayenatic London 12:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

hi

thanks. I understand something is done wrongly done by. Thus would be authorising to merge/delete categories done by me. Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your cooperation, much appreciated. The bot that processes category changes is currently working through a large backlog but should resolve these tonight. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

why u think my user page is fake?

hi

i have seen that somewhere you mentioned that i have a fakearticle but thats not. I didnt understand why such thing. I might not have much knowledge about wikipedia or say i am new user but really willing to help to maintain things. i might have done things wrongly but my intention is not offend anyone. Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I have just restored the tag on Vineet Gupta's user page. Vineet Gupta, the layout of your userpage is that of a generic Wikipedia article. So the general reader may not be aware they're visiting your personal userpage instead of an encyclopedic article about you. And that is why such misleading pages have to have a sort of disclaimer like Fayenatic applied there. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerning user: Thebiggnome

I undid a edit by User:Thebiggnome here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Mary&action=history that was unsourced and unexplained, but the user quickly undid it. I'm hoping you would resolve this before this gets out of hand by restoring the original content by you since your an admin. -- Thnx -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced, and I subsequently explained it, though the explanation was apparently unread. Thebiggnome (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have put the info back, but left the priority given by Thebiggnome. Does this work for everybody? – Fayenatic London 10:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks better to me, thank you. Upon further reading however, it doesn't even appear that King believes this. Later in this very Wikipedia article it says "King also sees evidence for tensions within 2nd-century Christianity" which she couldn't see if it was written earlier. I still think the 'suggestion' doesn't merit inclusion here. Thebiggnome (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's better now. Thanks for the quick fix Fayenatic. -- ♣Jerm♣729 19:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian films

Hi london,

Regarding a recent change which I made to the page Half of a Yellow Sun which included removing Category:Nigerian films since the page can be found in the sub category Category:Nigerian drama films, doesn't seem to go well with Lugnuts. The user claims that by adding the Nigerian film main category and its drama sub-category is the right thing here per WP:FILMCAT. I've tried to explain on the WT:FILM discussion page that there's really no need for the main Category to be left to get crowded when it may eventually become too large to control, thereby making it difficult for inexperienced users to find the class of the country's film they are looking for. I even read at WP:FILMCAT in the "Most specific category" section, that articles should be moved into their specific sub-categories and at the "Intersection Category" it points out the problems of multiple categorization stating that "the system is unwieldy as category sizes increase." I decided to talk to you about the matter because the disussion hasn't yet gone beyond the user and myself, opinion from a third or fourth person will really help this discussion. Thanks. Looking forward to your reply. Stanleytux (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No WP:FORUMSHOPPING, please. You've raised this at the Film Project already. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy nominations under discussion

Hi there!

Would you please clarify your decision to move Category:Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement to the Working page? The proposed change was under discussion and had been questioned and was not, in my opinion, uncontested or uncontroversial.

Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Black Falcon: the discussion had been there for four days, and petered out two days before. As I read it, [3] User:Cgingold had set out and defended a good case, and neither you nor @Good Olfactory: had formally registered opposition. If either of you think it's worth a full CFD, I'm willing to put it back and start one. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. My perspective was that any nomination that is questioned or is less than completely clear-cut, even in the absence of formal opposition, would be outside the realm of speedy. I should have made clearer that my comment about being "not sure about this one", coupled with Good Olfactory's comment that "this is one that could probably have a tendency to be capitalized", was intended as opposition on my part to the change being made speedily. I think a full CFD would be beneficial in this case, in order to consider the issue of capitalization as well as change "Central America" back to "Central American". Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Now reinstated and listed at Now at CFD April 6. I had not spotted the difference between American and America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Roman imperial coinage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Roman imperial coinage. Since you had some involvement with the Roman imperial coinage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo CFD

It's been closed. You mentioned "no bots" so I haven't added either to WP:CFDW. I assume you will just want to take care of this manually? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, I'll do it. It just needs doing in two stages, otherwise the bot would probably put everything into the new category. – Fayenatic London 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hangon deprecated

I cleared a number of WP:Hangon tags you had placed on a number of categories. Not sure why you placed them as: 1. Hangon is deprecated and 2. None of the categories had been nominated for Speedy Deletion. While the categories may have been emptied out of process, at this point, nobody has attempted either to tag them for speedy deletion or tag them for Categories for Deletion. Safiel (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Safiel: Thanks for letting me know. I did not know that it was deprecated. I used it as a pre-emotive measure to discourage deletion of these categories, as you presumably realised from looking at the talk pages. Is there a better template to use? – Fayenatic London 07:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If somebody attempts to tag those categories for CSD C1 (which would be the applicable rationale) the deletion template will automatically direct the administrator to check the rationale which you placed on the Category talk pages, which would likely ensure that the pages would NOT be speedily deleted. However, nothing anybody can do that would prevent somebody from nominating them for Categories for Deletion. Somebody familiar with the subject matter will need to repopulate those categories. Safiel (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the whole national hierarchy being nominated for discussion at CFD. What I am trying to prevent is piecemeal speedy deletion out of process. In practice, messages on talk pages are sometimes overlooked. Perhaps a new template would be useful. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment A new template possibly might be useful, but that would mean tweaking policy as well. In any event, template creation is a wee bit beyond me. I use em, but coding a template is something I know nothing about. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I went ahead and opened a Categories for Discussion debate here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 15. Safiel (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please see my comment there. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I withdrew the nomination. That is the problem with categories, sometimes it is very hard to figure out what is going on, unless you are familiar with the subject at hand. Safiel (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! Actually, the discussion was headed for "keep and repopulate", so it might have been useful. Maybe it could be reopened... Sorry, I must be doing your head in! CFD is not usually like his, I promise! – Fayenatic London 23:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a hoax

Hi Fayenatic london, I reverted your addition to the list of known hoaxes concerning whales in the Cape Verde archipelago. It is clear from referencing added by the uploader that the information was sourced. (See page 41 of their source.) It was simply very poor English: using "nestling" for "nesting" or "breeding", etc. However, poor English is not a hoax. And its subsequent removal by User:Kevin McE as "total nonsense" was ill-informed. I have rewritten some of the text and added two better sources. Just wanted you to know. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and resolving this! The editor who added it did not respond when I drew his attention to it, so it appeared that he had included a joke when he expended the article. Glad that's sorted now. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My sandbox

Why did you do this? DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Because of WP:STALEDRAFT. It seemed to be no longer required. No offence intended; I thought the template would be self-explanatory. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Category:Fictional_captains

As you commented there, I thought you might be interested. - jc37 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented again. – Fayenatic London 22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cfd closure

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 21#Category:African slaves in the Americas

The above discussion is closed. I'm not placing it for automatic depopulation in order to give time for manual depopulation, if wanted. - jc37 22:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 21#Category:Compositions by Ilayaraja

This one is closed now too. Since you seemed to do the research on this one, dropping a note here in case you would like to implement the cleanup : )

If not let me know, and I can list it at CFD/W for the auto rename at least (or you can, for that matter, if you prefer). - jc37 22:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done – thanks. I left a note at Category talk:Ilaiyaraaja albums about the action that I took over that one. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help creating new archive

Fayenatic, I have forgotten how to create a new archive. I created a new page, User talk:CorinneSD/Archive 6. Then I highlighted the contents of my Talk page and clicked "cut" and then, when I couldn't find Archive 6, I created it again, then pasted the contents of my Talk page on it, and saved it. But when I went back to my Talk page, I didn't see Archive 6 in my search box. I think Archive 6 exists, but I don't know how to get it into my search box. Also, the contents are still in my regular Talk page. What step did I neglect to take? CorinneSD (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, when you Cut the contents from the talk page, you didn't save it. That's all.

I just did a null edit on the top part, and a link to Archive 6 appeared within the Archive box.

Did you know there are two ways to do it? I prefer to use the "move" method on my page, rather than cut and paste, but they look the same afterwards. The only difference is that the edit history goes to the archived page if you do it using a move. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. How do you do a "move"? And what is the advantage (or disadvantage) of having the edit history go to the archived page?

At the top right, to the left of the Search box, is a drop-down with the "Move" command. At least, that's where I see it.

The advantage is that you can look at the page history of the archived page without having to navigate back to the live version. The disadvantage is that you can't look at all your talk page history in one go. Either way, it's hardly ever going to matter, as the Search in the archive box lets you look for signatures. – Fayenatic London

I have another question. I was searching yesterday for an article by looking for an edit I made about a year ago and I tried to see all my edits for 2013, but I couldn't. Could you tell me how to do that? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

When you look at your (or anybody's) contributions, the search options in the box near the top let you choose "From year" and "From month". That may be sufficient. However, if you have a lot of contributions in a month, you may want to try editing the URL. First, click the "older 50" link, and the URL will change to something like this (I'm breaking it onto two lines, to fit in my window):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/
Fayenatic_london&offset=20140422214822&target=Fayenatic+london

Note that the "offset" is the date and time: date 2014-04-22; time 21:48:22. To go back to the same time of day for (say) April 15, I would just change the two digits for the day, from 22 to 15:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/
Fayenatic_london&offset=20140415214822&target=Fayenatic+london

– Fayenatic London 15:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If I choose "From year" and put in 2013, can I see the entire year? Or would it be better to proceed a month at a time? Can I put in more than 50 at a time? CorinneSD (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC) The reason I'm asking is that I tried to see all of 2013 and I clicked on 500 edits, 250 edits, etc., but I kept seeing only the same group of edits (one page of edits) every time. I'll try what you recommend, though, in the meantime. CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To see more at a time, use the line under the box that says "(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)". The default is 50, but you can choose from the other numbers. I think you can also edit that in the URL if you want a different number. Having chosen one of those, say 250, to go back further you'd click the link that now says "Older 250".

While we are talking about looking through old stuff, have you tried "Revision history search" and the other options near the top of any page's revision history? – Fayenatic London 15:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try that. No, I haven't looked at Revision History search, but I think that only helps if you are at the article already. I can't remember the name of the article to which I made the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to tell you that the "Older 50" was what I needed. Thanks for your help. CorinneSD (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Fayenatic london, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Score vs Soundtrack

I think you know the difference between "score" and "soundtrack". In spite of that, why does Category:Film scores by Ilaiyaraaja exist? Shouldn't it be something like "Soundtracks by Ilaiyaraaja", or shouldn't it have stayed in its original name "Ilaiyaraaja albums"? Though he has composed the score for all his films, I don't know of any score that has an article separate from the soundtrack. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is our standard naming pattern, see Category:Film scores by composer. If I hadn't found that, it would have been deleted! I will put a link on the talk page to the discussion. Fair point about the soundtracks; three is only a small number to justify a category, but perhaps there are more notable soundtrack albums that could be written, so I'll add a category for them too. – Fayenatic London 06:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Family tiff

I see immensely valuable editors squabbling and apparently getting really upset over minutiae. There's a heightened readiness to take offence coupled with a tendency to write comments that come across as barbed, so things escalate. It's embarrassing and it's unnecessary. Remember that written communication often fails accurately to carry the desired tone and intention. A little thicker skin and an occasional shrug, and we'd all be fine.

I'm thinking of a case where we all got what we want, and we access it by clicking links rather than typing the name, so why worry about what it's called? I feel as if my dad and my big sister were asking me to take sides, so I can only lose, and so do they.

If you're reading this essay and don't recognise the scenario, then it's not about you; please don't go looking. I'm not expecting any responses. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Winkelvi's talk page.
Message added 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Hey, Fayenatic london,
Some edits were made to this policy that, while minor, could influence how CfDs are decided in the future so I reverted them. I was hoping you could look over the changes and weigh in on their appropriateness or neutrality. Since the majority of decisions at CfD are decided based on policy, changing the wording of such a controversial policy as WP:EGRS can change the outcome of deletion discussions that touch on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm, thanks Liz, I've always avoided getting my head round that page until now! Still, it's about time I did. I'm back to my studies today so have less time than the last few weeks, but will look at it when I can. – Fayenatic London 06:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: to be honest I'm not sure when I'll get round to this. Some things appeal to my interests but this never has. If you have somebody else in mind, please pin your hopes on them instead. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Roman Imperial Coinage

I've translated the article at Roman Imperial Coinage. As you suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_6#Roman_imperial_coinage, this needed to go all initial caps, which means that I am left with an orphan redirect at Roman imperial coinage. Roman Imperial currency does not have a similar {{R from alternate capitalisation}} at Roman imperial currency. I have also done some general housekeeping since the redirect through Roman Imperial currency was an {{R to section}} but not marked as such, nor was a courtesy comment left in the article at the target (Roman currency) which I imagine changed names (in particular from a date in the section title from "BCE" to "BC") which broke the link. (Leaving a courtesy note is recommended in MOS:LINK#Section links, but a lot of editors seem surprised by them, and take them out.)

Anwyay I shall stop rambling, I should appreciate your views at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1#Roman_imperial_coinage. Also, since you speak French a bit, can you cast your eye over Roman Imperial Coinage for any obvious fluffs or mistranslations: I think I have got the translations of the Emperors' names all going to the right places and the Latin Interwiki has the original English titles for the volumes, but I may have back-translated one or two a bit differently and not noticed since they tend to have a short and long name and ideally we should use the name that the volume title uses, even though the link will go to the right person.

Kind regards Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Winkelvi's talk page.
Message added 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Archives

Thanks for fixing that on my talk page - that little box keeps slipping my mind. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Timi Zhuo Wiki

Thank you for moving the resources to external link section. You may or may not aware that some Chinese visitors do not or can not read simplified Chinese. Removing the traditional Chinese Wiki link will take away the option of some Chinese visitor which I consider unfair. You may or may not know, this article is also mixed with simplified and traditional Chinese depending on who edit it. I therefore kindly request you not to remove the tradition Chinese Wiki link after I put it back. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard18857 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Richard18857: Interesting point. I wonder if Wikidata could show both versions for all pages on zh wiki. Do you know if this has been raised already? – Fayenatic London 13:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Zh wiki doesn't automatically convert simplified Chinese to traditional Chinese or vice versa. It will display whatever is there. To automatically convert Chinese characters one must use Chrome or Firefox browser with 新同仁 add-on (extension) installed. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard18857 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Richard18857: OK, then what's that http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/ ... address as opposed to the usual /wiki/ address? Looking at it without the extension, it just seems to display different punctuation. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Oh, those % stuff are encoding format of the Chinese word "卓依婷". Can you help me to make a ref to www.timizhuo.com archive and remove the padlock? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard18857 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Richard18857: The padlock icon is easy to change, wiki software displays one of those whenever you start the URL with https (secure) instead of http.

You have not explained why you want to give a link to Chinese Wikipedia at the bottom of the article. There is no need for this as there is already a link to it at the end of the panel on the left, 中文 under Espanol and Tieng Viet. The only difference in the URL is that your link includes zh-hant where the standard link has wiki. The only difference in the result is that your link displays more CJK brackets, see International variation in quotation marks. Why do you need to include this link? With your extension installed, can't you read trad characters from the wiki page you reach using the standard link? – Fayenatic London 07:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thank you for pointing that out. I might have tunnel vision when editing the page. It seems redundant to put the Chinese link in the External link section. I will remove it as soon as possible. I hope I can improve myself on editing along the way with your help. Please excuse my ignorant. Thank you for your advice and time spent on it. I clicked on the signature button at the end of the message and it just show 2 dashes and 4 special characters. Not sure it is the proper way to place a reply. Again, I'm pretty new when it comes to editing.--Richard18857 (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic London: Thank you for participating in Timi Zhuo wiki page. Should you have any question about the content that needs citation,clarification or reference, I will be more than happy to do the research work on it. Best regards!--Richard18857 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving categories

There is a discussion about having the option to move categories (like articles are moved) happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Category pages will be movable soon. I think since you have closed many CFDs, I think your opinion would be valuable to hear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Blank my userpage/draft

Hi! I see you blanked my personal userspace draft page at User:Medende/draft with the reason "inactive userpage blanked". This doesn't hurt me at all, also considering that I have the history log in the improbable case I needed it. But I don't understand the rationale behind your slightly intrusive action. Blanking a page doesn't free megabytes on Wikipedia servers.. so why? Medende (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Medende: I stumbled across it when checking what linked to a deleted page. Does WP:STALEDRAFT explain my action to your satisfaction? – Fayenatic London 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you did the same thing to me which I raised with you. STALEDRAFT does explain your action and even mandates it, but really is it beneficial to anyone to do it? To be honest it is slightly irritating and feels slightly intrusive. I'm not really sure what the benefit of doing it is, but wouldn't it be more courteous to leave a message on the user's talk page saying "hey, just wanted you to know that per STALEDRAFT you should get rid rid of that userpage". There's enough friction in WP without adding to it with trivial stuff like this. Just a thought. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for doing it insensitively. I guess it would be better if I linked to STALEDRAFT in the edit summary. Would it help a little if I added a standard explanation at the head of my talk page? – Fayenatic London 21:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion was to not actually do it, but just point out to the user it should be done. But it's not a big deal - forget I mentioned it. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As you say, the policy mandates it; but I'd rather not be adding to the friction that you mention. I'll look into improving the template, and it would be a good idea to check whether the editor is active in order to leave a message for an active editor as you suggested. – Fayenatic London 05:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually we are both out of date. STALEDRAFT has been scrapped in Marcg, see this. Looks like other users should only be deleting the page of "long inactive users". That makes sense to me. DeCausa (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks for explanation; leaving abandoned/broken content is incompatible with WP's long term purpose. I agree with it. Medende (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

that's what I get for not watchlisting CfD

I only saw this just now, with the category being replaced by the changed one. As its creator, I should have noticed a tag for the discussion, but never saw one. This is a category that, among others, BHG wants to delete as if Vancouver Island were not a bona fide region and that classifying things by it were "original research". The correlating "of Haida Gwaii" category is because that's a group of islands, not one. Wiki-usages all too often wind up contriving usages that don't work in the real world, but I'm worn out with trying to explain the obvious to people who only care about guidelines, not proper usages/idioms.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In your preferences there is an option to automatically Watchlist pages that you create. But please stop attributing motives to other editors. – Fayenatic London 05:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to have no connection to the renaming that you linked to.

BTW, are you watching the responses to your nominations in the Speedy page WP:CFDS? – Fayenatic London 05:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Motives? No, statements; what I said about BHG's motives is in her own posts there, which had no basis in guidelines, only in opinion and a mis-quotation/misunderstanding about how rivers "must" be categorized (which isn't in any guideline anywhere). Bearcat alerted me to WP:OC#LOCATION which underscores the choices I've made for such categorizations; that CfD may yet be revived, but having it fielded by someone who knows nothing about places/subjects and didn't even have a guideline specific to the issue on hand, re her negative closures of RMs whose results continue to be disputed/discussed among Canadian editors doesn't have to do with "motives", it has to do with "informed discussion" vs knee-jerk CfDs against someone's nominations who she clearly has had strong negative opinions about; *my* motives and abilities and knowledge were the issue with her CfD, not any solid basis for same. And to keep my nose out of trouble, I don't watchlist RM and CFD lately; I'll have a look.Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean the IP user post saying that the names are ambiguous? Spurious, completely and totally; since when does the PRIMARYTOPIC of Cheyenne or Comanche etc mean anything but the peoples? my reply.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There were no RMs on those, nor was there a need to as those titles have been SFAIK stable, though Shawnee was moved to its current title long ago.Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've placed db-moves on Kiowa and Cheyenne, which I'd only looked at the catmain before finding out they'd been moved by "guess who", who of course also didn't clean up after himself as per usual by changing incoming links or ledes of moved articles ("nobody does that", he said in one disc somewhere). The IP user's repeated insistence on ambiguity for what are clearly unambiguous titles, and suggesting that "improper content" will wind up in the categories instead, sounds way too familiar to a lot of the mumbledy-peg heard in the RMs about ambiguity and primarytopics. I mean, honestly, is Kiowa a brand of car that's more famous? Comanche? Such time-wasting blather of needed and obvious moves should be shut down and/or ignored as being outside of guidelines, outside of reality, and just not common sense. What I'm seeing/hearing is just pure stubbornness and a desire to obfuscate....a little bit too familiar in its absurdity, if you get my implication....Skookum1 (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's right about not changing incoming links, see WP:NOTBROKEN. Anyway, I have done those two moves. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

K, thanks, now we'll see what goes down at CFDS......and that comment of his was about changing wording of ledes and articles etc..... he never seems to have read many of the articles he changed, and has resisted reversions to; never mind working on them beyond name-fudging.Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to make a full CFD nomination for those. Speedy is only used in very restricted circumstances. – Fayenatic London 06:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That very pointedly didn't happen after the move of Skwxwu7mesh to Squamish people, when Kauffner rigged a bot to speedy-move the category to the unworkable Category:Squamish, likewise for the template, only six days after the very contestible and biased premise of the RM that changed the main article title; that matter remains unresolved from the Canadian perspective and will be re-addressed as the primarytopic of "Squamish" *IS* the town/district municipality, no matter what Wikipedians in foreign lands opine per simplistic readings/invocations of guidelines, as with other similar "bad calls" re Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Atlin, Haida people, et al. There's no logical/common sense reason that an undiscussed BOLD move to the "FOO people" titles should stand in the way of respecting CONSISTENCY per other categories in the same topic area; long-standing prior titles should hold sway, no matter what one editors fiat-moves en masse may seem "stable" since those moves, but were disruptive in nature as is the stonewalling of discussion at NCL and NCET by the same editor. Why these were created as Category:Kiowa tribe and Category:Cheyenne tribe and the others were created that way is back in the mists of wiki-time, and as can be seen by looking around parallel ethno categories including "tribe" is by no means standard, and has nomenclature issues re American usages as "tribe" refers to a tribal government and a federally-recognized capital-T tribe, and is not equivalent to a term for the ethnicity as such. Could be the old long-ago titles were Kiowa tribe and Cheyenne tribe as were others, others were at "FOO Nation" or "FOO nation" and similar issues with "nation" were deemed to be too confusing and with other implications; I've drawn up a summary of the "old consensus" which lay behind the standalone article and cat names, it's only a sandbox for now, and there will be an appendix I'm working on at the moment of all ethnonym titles/categories et al, where all this become very apparent.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why scrutiny at CFDS matters. Sometimes it fails to pick up invalid nominations and they slip through. If errors are spotted promptly then they could either be reversed, or discussed at a full CfD. Now, please stop filling up my talk page with complaints about old stuff other than the point on which you currently want help. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Those were to do with an example of how CFDS was abused in the wake of an RM; those titles remain unstable; calling observations "complaints" is an attitude issue which I'll leave alone; it doesn't seem you're going to "help" the category moves and are coming up with reasons to send them to full CFD; the opposition came from an IP user whose complaints were not only groundless but based in opposition to disambiguation practices as a whole; other similar ones have been moved without RM, but here the roadblock seems to be not about content or reality but about wikipedia "proceduralism", and I'm all too familiar with how muddied those get because of uninformed and disputative commentary and "votes" and "bad evidence".Skookum1 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Squamish and its kin articles/cats noted are not "old issues", they are still issues.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Points taken or noted. More concisely, then: Please only write about what you want help with.

Now, I'm willing to start the CFD for Cheyenne and Koiwa. However, first I want to ask if in the discussion you will simply express your support. Comments about history of changes, other editors, or the wider picture are of limited relevance, and if they get long then they just piss people off, so it's best not to get started on any of those. If the discussion starts to get bogged down like that then I would withdraw it than see it accumulate like some past discussions. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a simple support vote if you'll start it, then. The "wider picture" is best summarized by the table I'm working as an appendix to User talk:Skookum1/TheOldConsensus (really the re-emergent/affirmed consensus), I'm just formatting its base right now...work in progress, global index, as yet only three/four regions.Skookum1 (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Done for Kiowa. I pulled out of Cheyenne because of Category:Cheyenne, Wyoming. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

that's not a real dab for the standalone name because it's disambiguated. The city is also named for the people, a reality which points to the primary topic of the name of this very notable Plains people being the people themselves. That aside, I've got a start on the magnum opus of ethnonyms, so far only NorthAm, Carib/CentralAm, and Australia, and some of North America is missing, and the chronicling of diffs as seen on the first few only started; massive, but somebody had to do it, given all the wild claims about what's normal, what's the most common form etc....got the idea from WP:CANLIST though had proposed it at IPNA a while back, and was told (by Uyvsdi) that there were "better things to do" or something to that effect. But given the clarity it offers on why "FOO people" is a standard for "people who are FOO" category names puts the lie to her claim, as per her reversion at NCET re-asserting "preferred" and the patently wrong "not ambiguous" versions of that text. The list/table might better be broken down with different continents on different pages for reasons of wieldiness, that point at this point is to demonstrate that the vast majority of ethno titles are at standalone forms; that being said, my initial compilation of that list left out the "FOO people" and "FOO tribe" forms, going back over said categories to include them is the next step. A reference guide like this is needed, and without the "moved" columns could form a useful archive/reference point for naming discussions...that ANI of Maunus' is NPA and AGF to start with, and full of misrepresenations about my "frenzy" of moves as if they were uniscussed and not procedural, and as if they weren't necessary...or hadn't been, in fact, for the most part moved per TITLE etc.Skookum1 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Songs about Rain

The talk you couldn't find is here. Whereas there might be some value in Songs about the cold war. About Rain? You really must be joking, as per Bearcat's comments. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I did find that one, and updated the link to it from the April 26 Cfd discussion, [4]. However, it is plainly not a centralised discussion about the whole category tree of songs by topic.

Please be careful about making assumptions about other people's sense of humour. The list is an easy way to retrieve the contents for re-creation, even if it also gets deleted.

I assumed good faith i.e. that you were not joking about starting a centralised discussion on the whole category tree, otherwise you would not have agreed to combine and withdraw the 3 nominations on April 26. So where is it, please? Have you not got round to it yet?

– Fayenatic London 05:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will, and I did say I would wait for songs about rain to be closed. Should be able to do it over the weekend. If I don't I won't have time for a month. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of songs about rain for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of songs about rain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about rain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Richhoncho (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I considered this but don't have anything to add at present. I don't think that I would participate, nor that it would have made a difference in my case. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

An editor posted an interesting comment on the Talk page of the article W. H. Auden at Talk:W. H. Auden. I don't know what to say or even how to move the reference even if I thought it should be moved, but the editor may have a good point. CorinneSD (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome

at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Page move request for Sirach. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits on Tony Anthony (evangelist)

Hi Fayenatic

I note on your recent edits to the Tony Anthony page that you have added references to the site by Ian Bruce

http://www.forthesakeofthegospel.co.uk/

If the above site qualifies to be referenced (and I'm sure you have a better notion of that than I do), I believe the exhaustive rebuttal to the claims on that site should also be added:

http://tonyanthonytruth.com/

I don't wish to edit the page myself, because I have a conflict of interest, but I believe that inclusion of the latter site is entirely fair from the perspective of NPOV.

Thanks for your consideration!

EutychusFr (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Has this site been mentioned in any independent media yet? – Fayenatic London 17:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Does this make a difference from the perspective of quoting policy on Wikipedia?

EutychusFr (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would certainly help, see WP:Identifying reliable sources. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep you posted EutychusFr (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've put it in, but somebody else might remove it as WP:OR unless it gets an independent citation. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Processing error

You have process categories from WP:CFDS in this edit, but forgot to paste them to WP:CFDW. Could you do it now? Thanks, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Oops, I see you gave me a cleaned-up version that I could have used. Well, I'll leave it now. I don't know what I clicked that inserted span codes instead of pasting as intended. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sports champions by sport

Category:Sports champions by sport, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 20:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like VisionaryGuy to be the blocked account and Eyesonchrist to be the active account

I'd like to go back to EyesonchristEyesonchrist (talk · contribs) instead of VisionaryGuy VisionaryGuy (talk · contribs). You changed me per our conversation on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VisionaryGuy to Visionary Guy

So, I'd like VisionaryGuy to be the blocked account and Eyesonchrist Eyesonchrist (talk · contribs) to be the active account. Thanks and please let me know when you have done that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionaryGuy (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 June 2014‎

 Done – Fayenatic London 09:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

World Horizons- Showing Notability

Hello! I have found several links for this article that might help show notability. A few of them are news articles that mention the US director of the organization, one is his personal website, and a few are links to blogs kept by people affiliated with the organization. Will those be enough? I can send them to you if you think so. Thanks for the help! Kai Troy (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Former Summer Olympic events

Category:Former Summer Olympic events, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Was there some consensus to move all "Culture of Foo" cats under "Fooian society"?

I was trying to find the "Culture of..." cat for a few different countries, and after digging around realized that you had moved them all out of "Category:Foo" and put them under "Fooian society". Such as in this example: [5]

Was there some big consensus raised somewhere with folks agreeing to reform the primary cat structure for every nation? If so, each of the Edit Summaries should've had a clear explanation, with a link to whatever page decided the issue. If there was no such consensus and this is solely a personal initiative, I strongly disagree with the move. Please advise. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dug deeper, so this was a CFD thing? Based on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_12#Category:Society_by_nationality and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27#Society_by_country? That seems a pretty small and quick decision to make such a huge change, and I still think it's confusing for readers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As Category:Culture is under Category:Society, should that not apply in each of their corresponding sub-cats? That principle applies elsewhere, so I thought it was needed here too. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Something is broken...

Checking Template:Cfd result after your reversion I think something is broken. I do not see the discussion properly linked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I reverted one when I meant to revert two. It should be working now. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not. And I see "keep" while it should say "merge" because I closed it as merge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Aah. I see what happens. Thanks! I confused the original mesage with the "being deleted message". Lol. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, you accidentally edited the template itself, which stops it working on pages where it is transcluded. It is meant to display the result of old CFD discussions, not the result of the TfD discussion to merge itself into {{Old CfD}}. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Hardy

An editor just removed three links and created one in the article on Thomas Hardy with an edit summary expressing surprise at the three links. Normally, I know about WP:Overlink and look for instances of overlinking. However, I just wondered whether there might be a particular reason for these three separate links. If not, then the editor was right. CorinneSD (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the edit looks like an improvement to me. Maybe when those three lines were linked there was not an introductory line above them. – Fayenatic London 04:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

New Notability Sources for World Horizons

I have found several more links that show notability for World Horizons that meet the criteria. How can I send them to you and get the page restored? Kai Troy (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor change to closure statement?

Hi.

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 19 § Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows. (I hope for better but never mind now.) Just one thing: Your closing statement reads "Deletion was suggested but that would be undesirable, removing articles from the Microsoft hierarchy altogether." I am afraid this is wrong. Please see: Category:Microsoft Windows. These operating systems are not only listed there, but also have their own categories with their own {{main article}} in each. Besides, I work in the Windows area; I'd fix it.

Could you please fix this statement?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it by giving an example; how's that? – Fayenatic London 16:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid your example is wrong. Windows 2.0 is part of that hierarchy. If you wish, you can look again!

Wikipedians keep telling each other: SOFIXIT. Not a case with me.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The example was valid at the time but you've just changed it. [6] I'm not sure what your game is. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tell you what my game is: I find I spend equal time to fix the problem of not being included in one hierarchy than to complain about it not being included. So, I do it. Except "what your game is" implies that I am doing something wrong; I just don't see it. I spotted a problem; I solved it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you missed something, and when I pointed it out to you, you changed it and left another comment as if I had been incompetent.

Now, why did you remove Windows 2 from that category which includes Windows 1, 3, etc? – Fayenatic London 17:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Short answer: Standard maintenance. Look at Category:Microsoft Windows: Drive Vaccine and Windows XP are put in the same category while they have nothing in common in terms of "Microsoft Windows"-ness. It needs to be fixed: Operating systems need to go to one category, components into another and files into another. The rest, e.g. procedure and stuff, are only to serve the purpose.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa hasn't just removed Windows 2, the whole category has been emptied and she has refactored your closure statenet.[7] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am still at a loss. Which part of what I do is wrong?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't refactor. I deleted the example portion. Refactoring is an act forgery. I never do that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring has its place. See WP:REFACTOR. Outright deletion of editor's comments is far worse. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, now you've emptied the category out of process, which is naughty. But it's not a bad solution. If only someone had suggested upmerging before the close. Tell you what, if I undo the close, will you suggest it? – Fayenatic London 17:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember since when, but every time I have heard "It's naughty", it was someone trying to hit on someone else.

Actually, it is important that you do not reverse the closure. Look, what I did is part of the consensus-building process: When a discussion is closed with "no consensus", editors try another approach and I tried WP:BRD, i.e. I made a bold edit and I will see what will become of that. Please note that I didn't do it out of a desire to assume the ownership of that section of Wikipedia; I just felt that the participants do not mind. Plus, I felt if I a choose an alternative avenue that involves discussion-first, the participants will wail in agony: "Argh! NOT AGAIN!". (The upcoming 48 hours, of course, will prove whether I stand by what I just said or I am a hypocrite.) But most importantly, that discussion has run its course. If this fails, I am going to need to find another alternative approach.

I just feel you do not appreciate the consequences of your closing statement: It has the potential to stop a whole chain of evens for a mere trifle of a reason that I can fix in 20 minutes max. (I am told that admins and rollbackers have access to scripts and tools that can do it within seconds.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my inappropriate language, then; your behaviour was impatient and reprehensible. I have of course no idea what chain of consequences you may be referring to as your comments are too cryptic for me, from your reference to SOFIXIT onwards. Anyway, as I disapprove of your method but have no objection to the outcome, I have nominated it for merging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 23. – Fayenatic London 18:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me use an exaggerated example: Suppose a very important conference between the European Union, United States, Russia and China is being held in the most prestigious hall of a city. Not long before the conference, a neighboring building collapses, covering the entire region in a foul smell. It is proposed that if the conference is to be successfully held, it is imperative to dispose of the ruins and the source of the foul odor. Now, if the participants of the debate are divided over choosing one of two potential landfills outside the city, it is still better to toss a coin, choose one landfill, get rid of the smell and avert a political crisis than end it with "no consensus". But specifically, statements like "there is a bump on the road to landfill A, hence this course of action is out of question" must be avoided: It is best to tell the driver to mind the bump or have the bump fixed.

We have a problem, four out of the five of the participants acknowledge it. That's the consensus.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I did look for merger possibilities before closing, but three out of five said nothing in support of mixing old and current versions.

Once again, what is this alleged international conference? All I can see is a clear case of WP:OWN. – Fayenatic London 05:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Last night, I made 307 edits, fixing categorization problems that had accumulated for six years, cleaning up the Category:Microsoft Windows and converting it, from a haphazard list of computing-related articles, to that of a category with an actual purpose. Now, please correct me if I am wrong: Four out of the five participants were of the opinion that "Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows" makes no sense. (Two said "rename", one said "delete" and one was okay with both rename and delete.) I acted on the consensus on lack of sense. If you don't agree with this, you certainly remember that you closed the discussion with "no consensus", not "keep". So, I am at a loss as to what I violate or what I sabotaged that I deserve being accused of "a clear case of WP:OWN". Maybe I was wrong about a couple of things – including editing your message – but the least you could do was to assume that I did them in good faith.

I will request WP:WikiProject Microsoft and WP:WikiProject Microsoft Windows to audit the changes.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Then that's three out of five who could have objected if I had merged, "Hey, we only said we didn't like the colour of the floor, why did you blow up he conference centre?"

The problem is that BRD does not extend to emptying categories. What you did is considered "out of process" and deserves a WP:TROUT, but I'm not going to do it in case you take it as flirting.

Now, I am assuming good faith by asking what is the chain of events that you said I blocked by my close. – Fayenatic London 07:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The category is not going to remain empty. I didn't empty it to sneakily delete it; I must be a damned fool to assume I could do it and actually elude a permanent block. I intend to put actual correct contents in it. I don't know if you have noticed but I am not here to contest the closing verdict. First, I looked at the content and thought "this is not the correct name for all this". But now that there is no consensus to rename or delete, I thought "well, if I can't change the name, I can change the contents". Windows NT is not discontinued, but Windows Mobile is. (Windows RT will soon be.)

I assumed you knew this, because you've nominated it for a merger and kept talking about mergers so far. Now it is obvious why you assumed I am committing WP:OWN. The chain of events that I talked about is exactly this change and the 307 edit that I made. (And now, it is starting to seem very funny that you've nominated an empty category for a merge.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you'd have said earlier where you were going with this, it could have helped. I have no idea how much of your current intention was in your mind at any point over the last day. Anyway, please put something back into the empty category if you are going to, and I will then withdraw the 23 June CfD. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

All done – thanks. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"If you'd have said earlier where you were going with this, it could have helped." Would you, if you were in my shoes? You see, what I am doing is changing the status quo from a vast violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability to a vast violation of Wikipedia:No original research. For "unsupported", we have a lot of existing sources. For "discontinued", we have none.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)