User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive02

Giles again
Well, if the original editor had included the bit that you thoughtfully did—"widely known simply as 'Giles'"—I wouldn't have reverted in the first place :-). You might also consider doing what I did for the other Giles and create a redirect at Giles (cartoonist) to use for the entry on the dab page. Best-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  23:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of fictional topics
Hi. Each of the links is to a list on Wikipedia. I used pipes to avoid unnecessarily repeating "List of fictional" 285 times. This list does not attempt to cover all fictional topics, just the lists of such which are on Wikipedia. It is based on Lists of mathematics topics. Meet me at talk:Lists of fictional topics to discuss it. The Transhumanist 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Just use the "Related changes" command in the toolbox on the list on a daily basis.  Check all changes that come up.  If a list gets nominated for deletion, use a bot or WP:AWB to post a courtesy notice to each user who contributed to the nominated page.  And please notify me as well - consider this my official request.  The Transhumanist 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Zacharias (surname)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Zacharias (surname), and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 14:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was splitting a Wikipedia article, creating a new one. The SearchBot detected another copy of the Wikipedia source article, which ought not to be copyright. Fayenatic (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that, since blinkbits.com does not only post material under a suitable license, I cannot add it to the list of exclusions. When you hit that particular snag again, simply do as you did and remove the tag (preferably with a short note on the article's talk page so that passing admins know why), and no further action will be taken.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Faye Wong
Hard to provide references for any of them, so you can just delete them anyway you want, but here's what I know: 1) I distinctly remember reading it somewhere in a leading Chinese entertainment magazine back in 1997, but it's 10 years ago... 2) No idea who wrote that. It was left over from someone who edited before me. 3) This one is hard. I'm pretty sure that IS what happened, but it's difficult to prove, since IFPI HK doesn't provide those numbers. It wasn't selling as expected in HK due to the financial crisis (even less than Faye Not for Sale; again, definitely read it in some magazines, but no hard evidence today), but it reportedly sold over 500,000 in Taiwan (there might be evidence for this; from my conversations with Taiwanese editors I believe it was true). As for her popularity on the mainland, it's just something I know cos I grew up there. EMI did a hell of a better campaign than Cinepoly for her in China, and with Faye Wong 97 it was the first time highschool students, who are nearly 30 today, and 20-somethings across the country ever heard of her. It makes sense, cos merely one year later, she swept over the nation with Chang You like no singer had ever done before (excluding Teresa Teng perhaps).

Anyway it's tough finding evidence to support 1 and 3, but anyway all of them should be deleted for lack of evidence.--wooddoo Eppur si muove 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Davewong.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Davewong.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shell babelfish 22:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did add the "replaceable-disputed" template and expanded the Fair Use justification, and the image still got deleted! Oh well. No wonder other editors complain about "copyright nazis". I've replaced it with a new tiny image which I hope will be left alone. Fayenatic (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * was also deleted, this time without notifying the uploader. Live and learn. Policy is policy. Fayenatic (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template "Profeten uit de Tenach"
Dear Fayenatic London,

You've changed on July 15 the template Profeten uit de Tenach (in English Prophets of the Tanakh) on the Dutch version of Wikipedia. Now, the category Profeet uit de Hebreeuwse Bijbel is shown in the left upper corner. But I don't see the necessity of this change. Can you please explain why you think it's better to show this?

Thanks, Sven Rogge


 * Thanks for the clarification. Sven Rogge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.119.60.13 (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger
I noticed you de-prod'd one of the Star Trek novels. I was actually going to try and find time to go through the lot and prod or AFD all of those that do not meet WP:FICTION... however if you're familiar enough with the content and willing to take the time, I think it would be a better idea to merge all of them into the one article, per your suggestion. I still believe the series, on a whole, needs to meet WP:N guidelines, but one article is much more tolerable than 2899873289289 stubs of non-notable fiction. Good idea! /Blaxthos 19:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Davewong
first, I need to tell you that i have no experience dealing with fair use rationales, so all I can help you with is to retrieve the rationale from the page; it was deleted by User:ElinorD as "was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago."

di-replaceable fair use disputed|There are no images of this singer in Chinese Wikipedia, nor on Flickr. I have spent more than 30 minutes searching the web and have only found images that appear to be copyright. I will try fan forums but until anything comes up there is no free replacement for this image. Licensing Fair use in Dave Wong Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: DGG (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is a low resolution copy of part of a CD album cover.
 * 2) The image is a photo of Dave Wong who is the subject of the article.
 * 3) No free or public domain images have been located for this singer.
 * 4) For an article about a person, a picture showing their face is very important and adds significantly to the article.
 * 5) It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD album in any way.
 * 6) Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD, as it is only part of the cover.
 * 7) More complete versions of this image are used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is. The cover is being used for informational purposes only.

Three Monkeys
Hi,

Exactly one of the items on the list was properly sourced with a reliable secondary source.

Ideally, if one watches a movie, and sees an allusion to the work in question, that experience should not be included in the encyclopedia: that constitutes a form of original research, albeit a loose form that Wikipedia frequently allows through inaction. Ideally, articles should composed of references to the work noted by secondary sources, like scholars, newspapers, magazines, or even an established website. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One may use a primary source descriptively in an article about that source (within some limits.) If I watch a movie, and write a minimal plot summary for its Wikipedia article, that's okay.  However, when one adds something to a "list of popular culture", one is making the claim that the observed reference is significant, which is a claim that is both analytic and subjective.  An encyclopedia is interested in the analytic and subjective claims of reliable sources, and of experts -- of people whose opinions are noteworthy enough to be recorded in the mainstream press, the scholarly world, etc.  A wiki encyclopedia is not interested in (and, indeed, would be doomed by the weight and irrelevance of) the opinion of every editor on every subject.  That's why WP prohibits OR.

Say an editor sees an allusion to the three monkeys in an episode of Seinfeld that lasts for 2 seconds, and is forgotten by all but the most avid fan of the series. That editor notices it, and adds it to the article. I ask him, "Sure this allusion exists, but why is it significant?" Other than using the obviously inadequate, "Because I say so...", the editor could try this line of thought, "Seinfeld is significant; Three Monkeys are significant; so, Three Monkeys in Seinfeld is significant!" That claim fails in this way: it is an analytic claim, and editor's analysis is OR. Its failure is even more obvious is one substitutes any random significant thing into the logical premise. "Seinfeld is significant; ice cream is significant; so,..." I hope you understand that not every thing that has ever appeared on television for 2 seconds is significant -- I'm sure some character ate ice cream during the run of that show, but there is no proof of the significance of that conjunction. To prove that ice cream (or the Three Monkeys) has a significant conjunction with another item of popular culture, one needs reliable sources. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FayeNoEvil.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:FayeNoEvil.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because Xoloz deleted the article that it was illustrating, see above. I've now added it to Restless (Faye Wong album) in order to show the photo on the back of the album cover. Fayenatic (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MilkAndKisses.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MilkAndKisses.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EyesOnMeSmall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EyesOnMeSmall.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the only thing it needs for the bot to be satisfied is a license tag, and a fair use rationale that links to all articles that the picture is used in- a separate link for each one. I just linked to Music of FF8 to satisfy the bot, the rationale itself wasn't very good though, so thanks for cleaning that up. --PresN 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Faye
Thanks for watching my back (in regard to a revert of vandalism on Zack. I am learning the ins and outs of editing and cleaning up vandalism, and try to check history pages whenever I can, but sometimes I miss something.  I'll try to do better!  --Rhopkins8 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lists of fictional topics
An article that you have been involved in editing, Lists of fictional topics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.

I didn't nominate it, but I expect that the article will be deleted, in which case please keep what can be kept by ensuring that all the listed articles are members of Category:Lists of fictional things or one of its sub-cats. Fayenatic (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see now why they were objecting. The list was redundant.  It should have listed the top-end lists only.  One solution would be to add the top-level lists to List of basic fiction topics, in the list section.  I'll get to it eventually.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist     18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research.....and the New Unification Church; and prophecy
Thanks you for once agains deleting my material; as you know, in trying to balance your unbalanced articles which vary between Sunni and Shia official viewpoints I have tried to introduce another viewpoint based on two very good sources: the Qur'an and the Bible; along others like Malcolm Godwin and the rest: yet my srticles are called oringinal research. Very well; let us examine this in light of your definition: if 2,000 years ago someone said "watch out for a red ballon that will appear in 2,000 years: it's bad news" is it then my POV if I see a red baloon and then add the possibility that perhaps this is what was meant? That is not "original research"; it is a way of discussing prophecy by pointing out it's fulfillment ACCORDING TO THE FACTS: and this is what is difficult for the editors and so on: explaining things in light of actual occurence is not research: it is observation; and impartial because detached; in light of Fatimha and our friend who fits the profile of both Muhammed and St. Paul as possibly being the Antichrist as Osama bin Laden: you may disagree with what i say; but to call it "original research" is actually to deny the truth of the observation: if I point out that Osama fits certain criteria and is operating as the de facto "antichrist" is this not in fact something of which you therefore know nothing: but to delete it as original research you would have to prove in your POV that Osama bin Laden is not the Antichrist; the Islamic ad-Dajjal. If Osama bin Laden is the ad-Dajjal and I put all the factors in which he has fulfilled prophecies from both Muhammed and St. Paul is this then original research or perhaps an attempt to balance you articles with the possibilities open to us in obvious light of the evidence?? It is what you ask those who do know of these things to add to the articles in question; yet I am trying to help you do just that!!

I agree that I may seem to be putting up things which are not commonly known: but the operative word is "yet"; they are becoming known: you and I are discussing them. As the founder of the New Unification Church I wonder how you have the authority to delete the position of my church which I put next to the official position of the Catholic Church? If the writers put that the Catholics believe that Fatima is the Virgin mary and i put that in my church doctrine it is the Virgin Mary: Maryam al-Kubra: the greater Mary of Islam: for which "Fatimah"in PORTUGAL WAS NAMED: and that is WHY Mary appeared there: as a Sign: is my doctrine of my church somehow not allowed? Surely my church must be given the same place to put into words our official belief as well? And if not: why not? As you all may know; I am a Sufi: is then my doctrine not allowed next to that of the Sunni and Shia of which my system of belief illustrates their unity along with christianity and Judaism? Apparently not; but if not: why not?

I would love to hear any and all advice on how to expand the very real database of knowledge Wikipedia is bringing to the world: but at least let things like prophecy and subject matter like the Bible and Qur'an have their actual content be the context for exploring possibilities that may comprise an objective rendering of the truth: and I can quote from a dozen articles which must express things in much the same way I have done with the same sources: but mine is deleted while theirs remains: as opinionated, subjective and often recopying fable; myth and legend: with no editiing at all. Things like the "Christian View of Muhammed" are full of totally unverified research: but it stands because it was copied out of a book: and was false then; and is still false now.

Prophecy is a science; one of the few that is known to both angels and men; yet if I write that the bible was written with the help of angels is this original research or does the Bible in fact state this: and can it then be "restated" with the conclusions drawn that perhaps angels are concerned with the future of man: or is that too great of an extrapolation: too "true" to be written down as a very real possibility in explaining things like "prophecy" or the "Last Judgement"?? Or does Wikipedia insist that some things cannot be explained no matter waht source you quote? What Malcolm Godwin wrote about the Grail I have quoted: but it was deleted along with the reference: because they said my article lacked references: but they were there: they just never read my article at all: very sad.

Let us hope that we can bring some much needed "balance" to Wikipedia: even though you allow no balanced examinations of fact based on the same sources and sayings and hadith everyone else is using: but I am not allowed to do so!! How strange!! Unicorn144 00:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear friend: I put that I wanted to END the arguments that proliferate instead of the information that is needed: please take a look at what I DID say: not what you have unfortunately not actuallt read in what I wrote: which is the opposite. I hope this is not how things are going to go here in the future! Unicorn144 14:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, just wanted you to know that I've also been corresponding with Unicorn144 and have made some suggestions here. I think there are some big problems in the way of him/her producing an article on a subject so dear to their heart, but have offered help if they proceed per WP policy. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  09:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just lost three lists of fictional substances
Just noticed three lists gone: see Articles for deletion/Fictional chemical substances, A-M, including all content for latinum and goodness knows what else. You may want to ask a friendly admin to retrieve some of it into a sandbox and merge the content into other articles or create focussed articles like Fictional materials in the Stargate universe. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the closing statement? There wasn't consensus, yet the closing admin deleted them anyways!  You should start a deletion review.  Let me know when it's set up, and I'll contribute an opinion.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    04:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Some editors don't seem to understand lists
There seems to be a tendency to inappropriately nominate lists for deletion.

Three things need to be done to protect Wikipedia's lists from attrition due to improper deletion:
 * 1) Monitor AfDs daily to defend legitimate lists
 * 2) Refine policies and guidelines to clarify the purposes of and exceptions applicable to lists
 * 3) Collect links of AfDs which improperly delete lists, in order to report the problem

I've been monitoring lists lately, but sporadically. I'll try to make it a daily habit. One person doesn't always make a difference though.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate the assistance in transferring the lists; both are things that I work on in my spare time, which I don't have as much of lately. I agree with your note above on lists. I've noticed that a lot of people toss off phrases like "indiscriminate information", "original research", "unmaintanable" and "WP:LIST" routinely without a moment's thought. I'd never taken the time to read those -- anyone who uses words like "listcruft" is presumed by me to be a geek until proven otherwise -- but one of the editors invited me to comment on suggestions for WP:LIST and, I'm happy to say, tricked me into reading what these terms really mean. Mandsford 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, Fayenatic. Thanks for the welcome note. Again within 24 hours of my writing. Regards, Jeremy Jeremysc 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthroponomy project
Glad to have you in the project, as for your question I would think that splitting name pages from disambiguation pages would count (as I understand you asking the questions). Please feel free to take as much control of this project as you want because currently it is without any sort of leader (I am too busy to lead it unfortunately). Remember 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

hi there.
hi there. how are you? It's been a while. just thought I'd drop by. what's up lately,? i've created some new categories. Tahe a look and let me know what you think. some are recent, others go back a ways. Here they are: Category:Diplomatic conferences, Category:Political charters, Category:United States national commissions. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right
I should have had the page moved instead of a cut and paste job. I don't know if it's too late for an administrator to do it, but please feel free to contact someone to do this. Remember 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change what I have typed in comments.
I would really appreciate it if no one messed with what I write on discussion pages. I'm sure you had the best intentions, but please, do not change my words and keep them attributed to me. --Explodicle (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a careless error, intended only for my own edit but inserted into another's, and I have apologised on this editor's talk page. - Fayenatic

CfD nomination of Category:Games in Star Trek
I have nominated games in star trek for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Maelwys (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Paddy / Paddy Chayefsky
Hi! You removed my link to Paddy Chayefsky from the page Paddy, with the comment "it may be worth creating an article Paddy (given name). Meanwhile, + Lookfrom" -- (A) Since we don't yet have the page Paddy (given name), why not leave the link to Chayefsky on Paddy? (B) I haven't been able to track down any meaningful explanation of "Lookfrom". Can you refer me to something? Thanks -- 201.37.229.117 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at User_talk:201.37.229.117. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Devasahayam Pillai
I truly appreciate the good work you are doing in adding references to Devasahayam Pillai article and trying to making the article appear neutral.:-) At the same time, the 'Martyr Devasahayam Pillai' website cannot be considered as a trly unbiased and reliable source of info. Anyway, I exhort u to continue the good work :-) -- Ravichandar 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The section "Martyrdom" could be renamed as "Traditions of Martyrdom" or something appropriate I think. Otherwise, the article is fine. I commend the good work you have done :-) - Ravichandar  10:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

John Harriman
Hi. I want to ask your opinion on something. Do you think the image of Ruck/Harriman used at Memory Alpha would be a better choice for his Wiki article? It's better cropped, better lit, shows him in his SF uniform, and qualifies under Fair Use. What do you think? Thanks. Nightscream 23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that one is pretty good as it is, but if you insist, that's fine. Let's hope it doesn't get delayed again! Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

History-only undeletion
FYI, you can request that a prod be undeleted without going through the DRV/AFD process by asking the deleting admin on his talk page (as I just did for Xindi Council); see WP:DRV. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as I think you're experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the expression of confidence. I do have a broadly-spread experience including AFD and CFD, and a demonstrable record of objective editing and civil discussing. However, I have not contributed to featured articles, nor on heavily contentious topics. I'm also supposed to be spending less time on Wikipedia, not more (domestic policy concerns); and right now I don't have the time to put myself through the process. I don't think I'd ever abuse the tools, but nor do I feel I need them for what I want to do on Wikipedia at the moment. So, without prejudice to the future, I'll hold off on that. Cheers, - Fayenatic (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just closed my first AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joystix (merged, non-admin closure). Who knows, I might get a taste for this sort of thing after all. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Anthroponymy
Hello and thanks again for your comments on the wikiproject page. As suggested, I created Woodson (name), moved Woodson (surname) into it, moved given names into it, rmv given names out of Woodson. I'll work on nationality/birth/death years, removing redlinks, one wikilink per entry, etc. I can be pretty obsessive with editing things of this sort, so glad to give it a go. Rosiestephenson (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Zacariya
Hello. I remember... But, in pt:wp, make a fusion of texts, including every views about Zacariya. And my opinion isn't winner. Thanks for your atention, about this. Alex Pereira 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For moving me up on the editor's page. I totally forgot about this. We are at about the same edit count but I think you are going much faster than me. Good job. Remember (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good compromise on Jesus wept Andycjp (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer page
Yeah, I am watching a lot of name pages including the Jennifer page. As for the deletion feel free to change back. I tend to delete all the red-listed links because I figure if they aren't notable enough for their own page on wikipedia, then they are not notable enough to be listed in the general name article. But if it is linked to a legitimate article than it's okay with me. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

David...
Sorry about that, didn't really think about the consequenses, I'm currently going through the links updating them although it may take some time. Guest9999 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Star Trek list
Please move User:Fayenatic london/List of Star Trek regions of space to List of Star Trek regions of space in order to have other oarticles redirected there as part of the AfD process. Once you have moved the article, please let me know. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied over here on a related topic. Please go there and let me know. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for the good info. I wasn't sure if it counted as a redirect, I redirected that redirect and just... I dunno. anyway, I'll keep that in mind. Have a great day ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sunderland06/UserBox/iwantaward
Hi, do you know how to fix this, User:Sunderland06/UserBox/iwantaward because the categories wont show up at the bottom of my userpage.Thanks.Sunderland06 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Yeah that is exactly what i wanted, thanks. Sunder  land  06   20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:STOGAMRuck1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:STOGAMRuck1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, let it go now (see discussion above). I've labelled it db-author. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor prohets
Silly me.

Thanks for correcting. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Accordance
An article that you have been involved in editing, Accordance, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Green (basketball coach)
When I get a chance, I can expand the article, but coaches of Division I basketball programs (which Fairleigh Dickinson is) are (supposed to be) inherently notable. --fuzzy510 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Trek
Yeah, that sounds like a better idea. What idea I had, was to take the list of Trek characters, and break the articles apart. Create the list you mentioned for Enterprise, TNG, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and TOS. Then from that list you would select the series. Then you would select major/recurring/minor, etc. This would be easier to navigate then one (or really 4) huge articles with every trek character ever. For the movies, I would propose 1-6 go with TOS and 7-10 go with TNG. I will help with the articles if you like, as it's a big project and will likely take some time, but we can make this look a lot better. We can leave the other articles as redirects, but undoubtedly we'd have to change some links from other articles. Sounds like a good idea, what do you think? Ejfetters (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you. :) Rosiestephenson (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Surname article up for speedy deletion
Hello and help. Please see Fitzmorris, a surname article I was working on, which just got tagged for speedy deletion. I don't understand why it, of all name articles, would be singled out. Any support for keeping the article by commenting on the Fitzmorris Talk page would be appreciated. Thank you. Rosiestephenson (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved. Article was spared. Rosiestephenson (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; I think that's what happened. And thanks for the admin referral... just in case. Rosiestephenson (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek recurring characters
Hadn't gotten around to setting up the actual category yet. Thanks for taking care of it.--Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories
I agree with you, I used to carry over categories to merged and redirected articles but others removed them. And I would support an amendment to the rules to allow for it sometimes as it appears to never happen now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Greenwood, SC μSA deletion
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Greenwood, SC μSA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. J. Randall Owens | (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, I nominated it as a redirect for deletion, thinking it was a typo. My bad. I'll always check for incoming links in future. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: otherpeople
Thanks! I've added you edit summary as an HTML comment after the otherpeople template to make sure it stays in. -- Ddxc (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Name
Your name isn't anywhere near as obvious a potential cause of concern as mine was. I don't think that there would likely be any real chance of your being opposed on that basis by more than a few editors, at most, and I sincerely doubt that would change the outcome of an RfA. Having said that, if you thought the name could be changed to your benefit, I don't see any reason not to do so. I might advise against using your real name, because that might potentially cause problems for you somewhere down the line. User:Hiding seems to have found that out a while ago. I don't myself know the details there, though. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:Christianity
Also I thought you might like to look at and maybe become an editor at Wikichristian http://www.wikichristian.org/index.php/Main_Page and Christianity Kathleen.wright5 01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion
Replied . Baka man  02:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Greg London's page
Hi Fayenatic london:

You did a great job on Greg London's page. I have been practicing some, but, I'm still pretty usless. Greg has some great journalism on his Reno Nevada show and I sure wish I could a link up to it. It is verifiable. His PR folks have put up a page at: http://www.thegregshow.tv/harrhsreviews.html if you feel like having a look. He is a really good guy, says God Bless You to his audiences every show without seeming politically incorrect in a Casino Theatre. Yeah!!!

If you have interest let us know on his page.

Thanks again for the beautiful page you are really talented here at Wikipedia.

Monika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika London (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fayenatic you are darling!!!!
Here is something to add to the person you ran into who caught the last show over there, have a read!

http://www.city-data.com/forum/reno-sparks-area/163337-has-anyone-seen-greg-london-show.html

I don't mean to create conflict of interest, but, the PR and marketing folks had not even heard of Wikipedia can you believe that, maybe the professional marketing and PR companies in London needed younger people. I love Wikipedia, i utilize it every day for important topics, I am at my best as an accountant, but, have ended up by default with the Wikipedia job. I started with the imdb now too you might want to check it out. It's not perfect but, I'm getting there.

Thank you thank you thank you, you are the best!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika London (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

a couple more Greg London stories
Hi Fayanatic:

I found a couple of stories posted on the internet from The ICONS in London at The Venue Theatre period if you link they might be worth posting as well. I trust your judgement.

http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/news/display?contentId=92374

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/icons-rev.htm

Let me know what you think.

Thanks, Monika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika London (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

from Monika
Hi Fayenatic

Saw the edit nice choice and thank you for looking out for him.

You don't think you might like to put something up for him at the link below do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionist_%28entertainment%29

Let me know what you think.

Thanks, Monika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika London (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Greg London's page
Hi Fayenatic:

OK sounds good.

More facts for you to know about in case it can be used.

It is also a US factoid that impressionists are the classic Casino Showroom genre. Even Sammy Davis Jr performed impressions as well sang and danced and delivered jokes on the very stage where Greg London is now. It is those similarities that brought Harrah's Entertainment to him in the first place.

I also notice on the WestEnd page a long listing at the bottom of artists who performed in the West End in 2007, would it be possible to list his name there?

A WestEnd Theatreland factoid is that The Venue is the newest Theatre in the West End. It is old of course, but not nearly as old as the other theatres.

I have been looking into a lot of other Wikipedia pages and many are not as good as the pages you edit. Thank you for finding Greg London's page.

Monika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika London (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Greg London from Monika
Hi Fayenatic london:

That is just perfect. I hope I did OK on the impressionists page.

I forgot that Greg was awarded, Entertainer of the Year for Through The Years. I need to finish uploading his CV to imdb he has a ton of theatre and show work credit and it is just too big a job for this week. Thanks for finding it.

He is not Greg Franks. He actually is Greg London, but, went by Franks due to his mother having married Franks, but they divorced 40 years ago. This is not for wikipedia.

Thanks, Monika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika London (talk • contribs) 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

links to previous name
Subsequent decision made comment deleted.

Talk soon, MonikaMonika London (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

from Monika oops I am completeley useless here at Wikipedia
links relocated comment deleted thank you.

Monika London (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

manageing Greg Franks reference
Fayenatic wrote: Well, I won't force the issue if you have reasons to avoid it, but the only way to source some of the statements already in the article would be to acknowledge the alias. I stopped looking after I found Pebble Beach, Calif., Singer a Hit on the Corporate Circuit (1998 - Chrysler etc) and Entertainer of the Year 2001. I'd still suggest that these could be recorded on the article talk page with a note that the artist no longer wishes to be known by this name. That name does have plenty of Google hits as an entertainer, and all the pages I looked at were positive. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. Sourcing the fact that the designations, as the #1 Entertainer on the Corporate Circuit, "singer a hit on Coporate circuit" and Entertainer of the year 2001 I guess it would not hurt to throw in Entertainer of the Year 2000 for Through The Years while we are it, are not statements generated by us but the industry at large are really important facts because performers on the Corporate circuit print that on their materials with no substantiation because there is no press in the Corporate entertainment circuit to challenge it. Greg's designations are real from the top brass of the top companies. Greg joined the circuit because Jack Welch at GE personally recruited him out of an upscale bar in Pebble Beach called Club 19 when he was not even 20. Greg got the gig at the bar because a Pebble Beach manager, Sandra Kasky the current Director of The Concours d'elegance in Pebble Beach, saw him performing with his rock band at a Festival she visited while dating her husband, it is all quite serendipitous. Jack Welch had a vision to turn GE into the most valuable company in the world and utilized innovative management strategies including discovering a Rock singer "hey kid want to come sing for my top sales guys in Bermuda in October" to motivate, inspire and free his sales force from limitations.

Through The Years is a polished tighly woven scripted compilation rock musical that leaves windows of opportunity to insert specific Corporate content for each indivual convention. A brilliantly constructed vehicle to deliver the best high energy entertainment with a purpose of it's time and Greg delivered it to literrally thousands of corporate groups via word of mouth advertising. Publically traded companies need to stand up to tremendous scrutiny so until now we have never discussed in such detail the magic of what Greg performed for them and technically was such a good value for the stock holder's money they spent that looking back on the role this vehicle played in just Jack Welch's vision for GE, this exepnditure should hold up to that scrutiny, hind sight is always 20/20.

Greg is a genious entertainer and instinctively comprehends the "where" inside people the "connecting" occurs and the "how" you get there fueled with the "intention" as set forth by the visionary, for this sentence we will use Chrysler's Bob Lutz as example.

Thanks for forcing the issue, this developed really nicely. Nice work, great thinking. Monika

Wait till you read this, you are going to FLIP!
Fayenatic london:

I found a really important false Wikipedia listing that relates to Greg London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_Street Theme music

The show's theme music, a solo cornet piece, with clarinet and double bass accompaniment, reminiscent of northern band music, was written by Eric Spear and has been only slightly modified since its debut.[82]

Untruthful listing here: David Browning played the trumpet on the original recording of the theme, and was given the choice of either a royalty payment for each time the theme was aired, or a one-off payment at the time of recording. He opted for the one-off payment, and although he would have received more money in the long run with the royalty payment approach this is something he has been able to laugh about in more recent years."The theme music was also performed on television by the TV entertainer Roy Castle.

Truth here: The real trumpet player of the Coronation Street signature tune is Ronnie Hunt, the godfather of Greg London who is also an afficiando trumpet player. Ronnie Hunt, who resides in England and almost 90, has the royalty payments to prove it and a source from yahoo search below.

http://www.jazzprofessional.com/Main/welcome.html http://www.jazzprofessional.com/interviews/Stan%20Roderick_3.htm

"A trumpet player we saw in the studios from time to time was a man named Ronnie Hunt. Stan Roderick sent Ronnie to deputise for him on a session one day, which turned out to be the record­ing of the signature tune for Coronation Street. No one knew, of course, that the show was going to be such a hit. If Stan had played the theme he would have done so beautifully. Ronnie made another kind of job of it which you can still hear today, forty years later, and, of course, it fits the show perfectly. Coronation Street wouldn't be the same without Ron's trembling trumpet solo. I believe that an attempt was made in later years to re-record that solo, using Stan Roderick, but it sounded too good, and they reverted to the old one."

Interview: A tribute to Stan Roderic

Written by: Ron Simmonds

Deceased: 24th of October 2005.

A great jazz musician, arranger and talented journalist. He was the dedicated author & webmaster of jazzprofessional.com. The website will still be running but no further changes and updates will take place.

I would prefer not to delete the David Browning listing and I'm interested in locating the source who posted that listing. But, I do not want to lose the record of this important incident in it's original state of discovery. Things on our end need to be taken care of. This is incredible!!!

Talk soon, Monika London (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

some discussion concerning the Coronation Street signature tune
Hi Fayenatic:

Here is a little online discussion. I guess Dave has been a busy guy doing interviews and such concerning his performance.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/c/127724_just_36_notes_for_corrie_trumpet.html?page_size=25

Talk soon, Monika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika London (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Why, thank you, Fayenatic. I appreciate that. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Defunct museums cats
On your comment “If upmerge is decided, double upmerge including sate category” was added to discussion on the discussion page for several defunct museums cats. What does double upmerge including state category mean? I am unclear what you are recommending. Thanks for your patience. FieldMarine (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! FieldMarine (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ratnagarbhas
Hi! Thanks for retaining the 'Ratnagarbha' article with your expert editing inputs. I had done a lot of reading and referencing work to prepare the article and was quite disappointed when it was to be deleted with the reasoning psuedeo science. I could not reply immediately as was away on a long tour of the Himalayas (of course, not in search of Ratnagarbhas) but for locating suitable sites for Hydropower development in a river basin.

As we are all aware, this psueduo science has a very vast ancient historical literature support and is almost universally followed. I am glad that the article is now being retained. Any additions and valid corrections are welcome. Pl let me know if any more supporting references are required to strengthen the article.--Nvvchar (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations....
For passing me in edit count! I knew you would do it someday. Also, thanks for updating my editing history. Remember (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for backing me up on the Talk:Christian page. It can get kind of annoying out there when you're following the rules and someone else isn't, so a little "You're right Joe" relieves a bit of fury. :P

I see you are one of the big Wikipedia editors. Nice. xD

Thanks again. I appreciate it. :)

Oh, and I know you probably get a lot of these, but I want to give it to you anyway.

Thank you
Thanks for tidying my Talk page while you were passing by! Much appreciated. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DS9 episodes
Hey there. I am active on wikipedia, just solely on the viewing side, not on the editting side :) I mostly only edit to fix typos, revert vandal, and on occasion, to remove people who stepped across the line by tagging 176 articles, which i had referred to quite a bit on the course of viewing the whole series, as being unnotable and could be deleted in a week.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any precedent in this area. Also, I don't necessarily think that episodes should have their own articles, I was just stopping what I saw as a blatant disregard for due process. There should be a discussion before someone tags an entire series as non-notable.

Personally, I think that every notable TV series should have a page for each season, and these pages should have a table with a brief summary of each episode, boxes for directors and guest stars, and a link to fan pages/fan wikis (if they exist). maybe a screenshot. I would do that for DS9, but it would consume more time than I'm willing to devote.

Anyway, best of luck with whichever TV series you are trying to protect, sorry i couldnt point you in the direction of a precedent! SECProto (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories by year
Hi, if you have time, please comment on my suggestion at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 3, which is still open. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi FL - Sorry I missed your follow-up; I haven't been able to be on WP quite as much lately. I suggest you start a thread on the cat talk page itself, ping the other folks who commented on the CFD, and let's see if we can agree to a workable approach. I thought your approach was quite sensible, but, since it seemed like a Big Deal, I wanted to think about it for a while. (I wish the closer had carried that one over to another week.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly what Lquilter said. (though I have little knowledge of our cat system to base it on). I'm watching all 3 pages, and will comment if I have anything worth adding. But essentially I agree with your suggestions. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: your last comment
"But the category of fictional girls, once it was populated with all articles about fictional girls, would be so huge that it would not be very useful. You haven't started adding Video game characters or Anime and manga characters yet... - Fayenatic (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)"
 * Which is why in the very beginning I suggested splitting up the category by media. For example, we could create the subcategory Category:Fictional female children in video games and put it under this one and the already existing Category:Female video game characters. However when I went through the Category:Female video game characters I found that most of them were either too old or nonhuman. Would you object to a Category:Fictional female children using the same definition of "child" as in Category:Children and creating any necessary subcategories such as ...TV, ...in movies, etc.? For An Angel (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see you were very keen on this, and, having learnt deletion the hard way (i.e. by having had my own painstaking work deleted), I understand where you are coming from. I much more often defend articles and categories from deletion than seek it. The head category:Fictional females still exists because of me!
 * As for splitting the category by media, that would be a "three-way intersection", or perhaps four-way (i.e. age, gender, media, as well as fictional), which is generally considered overcategorisation and therefore not appropriate. Category:Fictional female children in video games would certainly not survive at WP:CFD.
 * I nominated this because I just don't think it is definable. Even the article Child takes a debatable and selective approach in its opening definition "between birth and puberty", as the dictionary quoted has alternatives e.g. "has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority".
 * Your proposal to take age 18 as the boundary for achieving notability has merit, but it's more fuzzy for fictional characters than real ones, esp. for those whose whole life was published in one volume. Some like Hermione Granger and Anne Shirley would be safely "in", but consider Jane Eyre and Meggie Cleary - they had memorably horrible experiences in childhood, but whether they achieved notability by that age is POV. This is grounds for rejecting a category, e.g. Category:Fictional pretty girls was bound to lose.
 * If you want to pursue this, I suggest the best approach would be to take the deletion of Category:Fictional children to WP:DRV. You might succeed, and if you do, I'll help you to populate the category. It would be a shame to restrict it to humans, though; you put Naomi Wildman in, and she's only half-human! - Fayenatic (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not as upset that it was deleted as you probably think. I mean, I had more fun arguing over the category than I did creating it (I probably shouldn't say that, lol). But it did bother me a little that the closing admin didn't give a rationale (I also noticed that he/she closed 8 other debates within 13 minutes, all delete and all without a rationale, which doesn't seem right) The only thing I am having a hard time with is understanding why everyone was against it from the start and not even willing to compromise. Why would people have a hard time understanding "child" when it describes fictional ones but not real ones? You said that determining whether Jane Eyre and Meggie Cleary achieved notability before adulthood is POV but we would still have the same problem when talking about real children. What if an actor's debut was in a big movie when they were 17? But what if they turned 18 before the movie was released? When would you say they gained their notability? What I'm trying to say is that there are always going to be blurry lines, not just when dealing with fictional characters. Regarding overcategorization, if we eliminate selecting by gender then we can just focus on age and media. For example, Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) from Calvin and Hobbs would fit in a Category:Children in comics and there would be no need to say they're fictional since obviously there are no nonfictional comic characters, which is similar to what they did for Category:Child superheroes. You're right about Naomi Wildman, I didn't realize that when I added her. I guess she is human enough to belong in that category, but what I meant was that someone like Cream the Rabbit whom I found in Category:Female video game characters probably should not go in it. In fact after going through about 70% of that category the only one I could find that I thought would fit would be Misty (Pokémon). I've never brought anything up at DRV but I'll think about it. BTW, I see Category:Fictional animals under Category:Fictional females, it probably should not be in there? For An Angel (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your AN post
In regards to that: I've removed per WP:BEANS, no offense intended. Secondly, it's impossible to remove edit summaries completely, but they can be admin-hidden or oversighted, but that would sort of be a waste of time to be honest for an admin to do it, and I don't the oversight policy covers that.  Maxim (talk)  15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit comments

 * See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Twist
I think this is a case where an article could be written but has not been. Give me a week or so to see if I can fill it in quickly. Sure, the novel centers around him, but there is specific discussion available for him as a character. If I cannot fix it up, I'll prod it again myself. DGG (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ki.A.Pe. Viswantham Pillai
I guess it is most probably K. A. P. Viswantham Pillai. He seems to have been a prominent Tamil politician and a leader of the Self-Respect Movement. http://www.google.co.in/search?q=K.A.P.+Viswanatham+Pillai&sa=X&oi=print_back http://books.google.co.in/books?q=K.A.P.+Viswanatham+Pillai&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp- Ravichandar 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects after merges (thanks)
Thanks for the info, I never realised about that extra bit of code. I'll check out those other articles that I've merged, I did quite a few when I saw another editor tag just about every other Trek character for notability etc Alastairward (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Orthodox martyrs
Category:Orthodox martyrs, Category:Orthodox martyrs of Modern Times, and Category:Orthodox martyrs of the Early Modern era, which you created, have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was Lanternix who moved (and emptied) the Coptic cats on 18 Aug 2007: here. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not keep changing my page
Being a DeSutter, I know that Paula DeSutter does not represent the etymology and history of the name DeSutter. You changed MY original posting based on both Ellis Island and Belgium Consulate information to your information on a conservative LOWER cabinet member. Any type of changes done again will be reported to moderators. PLEASE DONT DO IT AGAIN. Zepherin18 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What Ellis Island info? You deleted valid content and added nothing except a map which was not particularly appropriate. I agree that the photo can be left out. As for your edit summary re "my page", please see WP:OWNERSHIP. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)