User talk:Fayenatic london

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Please click the "new section" tab above to add a new message below.

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

[edit] Names articles

responding to input on my talk page

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

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

[edit] Response

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

[edit] Seawater Greenhouse

Many thanks.

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

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

[edit] House of Duras

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

[edit] Advert page

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

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

[edit] Ai

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

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

[edit] Paddy

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

[edit] Hi

would this web site help?

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

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

Cheers

Engineman....

[edit] Aidan rhyming trend

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

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

[edit] Greek citron

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

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

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

[edit] Internal consistency of the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Categories

The page "Category:Hebrew Bible people" does not to have "Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible" under "sub-category." How can this be fixed? --Carlaude (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, but it's not immediately visible -- just one click away. There are so many articles in the category that you currently have to click "Next 200" to see it. That's why I added the category tree at the top of the page "Category:Hebrew Bible people" (and all other Hebrew Bible categories) - you can click the "+" next to "Hebrew Bible people" to open it up and see all the sub-categories without going on to the "next 200".

The best solution is to remove people from Category:Hebrew Bible people if they are also in one of its sub-categories. Once the category has no more than 200 articles, we will be able to see all the sub-categories on one page.

I've just realised that Template:Hebrew people is going to give us a problem. Every article that includes it is being included in all the categories for its sub-templates e.g. Judges, Kings... I think the best solution is to make sure all of those sub-templates have category suppression. "Prophets" does, and I've just used it to take that template out of the Prophets category. Erm... have I lost you? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No I think I follow... but you seem very able to carry this out.--Carlaude (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops -- I meant to get round to this but have been busy, and now it's been deleted. OK, I know I did some other editing, but I hadn't meant to spend long on it. To sort out these templates I would have had to commit a long period intentionally... Sorry, I didn't help. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fictional children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Epicaricacy was not a content fork

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

—Wikipedia:CFORK#Related articles

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

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

[edit] Category:Lists of fictional children

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

[edit] Oliver Twist article

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

[edit] NN

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Templates, Categories, Kings and Judges

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

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

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

[edit] Cut & paste?

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

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

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

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

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Alien (franchise) lists

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

[edit] Category:Child characters in written fiction

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

[edit] Rico Tice reference

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

[edit] aqua teen hunger force question

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

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

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

[edit] Intermittency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind Regards

Engineman

[edit] Materials category

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

[edit] Benedictus (Song of Zechariah)

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

[edit] Hospitals

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

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

[edit] Reduplication category

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

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.