User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive09

Please click the "new section" tab above to add a new message below. If you are a registered user and I left a message on your talk page, please reply there to keep the conversation together. If I fail to respond within a few days, please poke me on this page. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Footballers cat

Hey, sorry this took so long to close, you mentioned you might be willing to help with manually adding cats to some of the articles in it. If you still want to, it's listed at WP:CFDWM (if not, don't worry about it and it will get dealt with). Thanks! Peace, delldot ∇. 04:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks—done. – Fayenatic London 12:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You rock! delldot ∇. 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

terms

I think Category:Obsolete medical terms may fall under the "glossary" exception, or at least, isn't a system of terms. Imagine if it were "former medical terms". - jc37 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- amended. I have to go out now, and will clear up later after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 22, unless any kind stalkers fancy helping out. All I've done so far is to close the discussions. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I commented there, can you just hear the outcry, if I listed those that qualify per your closes at WP:CFD/W? lol. - jc37 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, this is good: Cydebot removed the CFD templates from all the Keep or No consensus cases. How did it know to do that? Is that automated in an astonishingly clever way, or did somebody help me out by listing them? – Fayenatic London 14:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

'Tweren't I : )

My guess would be that someone listed them at WP:CFD/W/R : ) - jc37 22:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aha! That's a new one on me. Yes, it was Mike S. Thanks, Mike. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Templayte

Thanks for doing that, and for populating it. I've added another (in fact the second of the two I was planning to add – you got the first). Ericoides (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Adoration of the Magi

Can I remind you of the rules against undiscussed moves that are likely to be controversial? These days this term is only likely to be found as a subject in art, so your move was un-necessary. No I have to go to the trouble of getting it reverted. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What's your evidence for that assertion, please? On the contrary, a lot of the incoming links to adoration of the Magi are about the Gospel episode. I was going to disambiguate the ones that are explicitly about art, and only then start a RM discussion at talk:Biblical Magi suggesting a move. I don't think I have yet done anything controversial or that would be difficult to undo, and I was not going to do so without discussion. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find those links all come from articles also using the Christmas or Gospel episodes templates. Moving Biblical Magi would certainly be unwarranted. A google search on the term shows pretty clearly it is only really used in art history now. The mere fact that I disagree with your move obviously makes it controversial. The sole Gospel to describe the event says just " On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (which I have now added in full to the article) so I don't really see what else there is to say, as opposed to other issues around the magi, which are covered at that article. Note that The Visit of the Magi to Jesus already redirects to Biblical Magi - it might be better to use that in the Gospel template. Visit of the Magi is I would think the most typical name for the episode in normal religious literature, producing a totally different sort of result on a google search. I'll create that as a redirect to BM. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the templates yesterday, to use the page/redirect Adoration of the Magi in art. Bother, another editor reverted the Christmas one, and also removed the link to Biblical Magi; I have just reinstated it, and we will have to wait for the transcluded links to be updated again. I also found that The Adoration of the Magi was also a redirect to the art page, and that does make sense as "the" should only be linked as part of the title to an artwork.

"Visit of the Magi" is a good idea for a redirect, so I have used that in the Christmas template. "Visit of the Wise Men" or "Visit of the wise men" would be another candidate for the most typical name.

It's currently the Biblical magi article which lists depictions other than paintings. Even if that section was moved across, I think references to drama, such as Mystery play and Middlebush Reformed Church, should be linked to the main (Biblical Magi) article, as their subject is the gospel incident. Neighbouring links on those pages to other incidents such as "crucifixion of Jesus" are linked to the articles on the events rather than a page on art. Do you agree? if so I will disambiguate those to use your redirect visit of the Magi. Book of hours & examples of the same should perhaps use the art page. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Book of hours should go to "Adoration"! Is there an actual problem left here? If, so please say clearly what it is. I can't see one - time to leave well alone. Most of the Gospel episodes combine biblical & art stuff in one article - like Annunciation to the shepherds, Circumcision of Jesus etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked you about the drama articles. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What about them? They are fine where they are - "Adoration" is not a term used discussing them. By all means set up "Visit of the Wise Men" or "Visit of the wise men" as redirects if you want. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's precisely the "adoration" link in Mystery play that I am talking about. You must have missed it. Anyway, thanks for noting your agreement; I'll change it to link to visit of the Magi. – Fayenatic London 14:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A very unclear link, which I've edited - sending to the art article makes more sense but it doesn't really matter. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I 'll leave that one because the word "adoration" fits what follows, but will change the church article (linked above) to the main article rather than the art page. I do accept your conclusion above about not renaming the main article to "Adoration…" However, "Biblical Magi" remains an unsatisfactory title, as the article is about an event rather than a group or category of people. I see from the talk page that various renames have failed in the past. Do you think it is worth proposing a move to "Visit of the Magi"? – Fayenatic London 18:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you have just moved it. Biblical magi is about 3 people, and a string of events, including Journey of the Magi, Visit of the Magi, Dream of the Magi (all of these are different subjects in art), & a load of cultural refs. Really, what is wrong with you? Please stop fiddling for the sake of it & just leave things alone. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not moved Biblical Magi. I'm sorry for upsetting you, I did not realise that this was solely your encyclopedia.

I was about to save a revised version of my comment above but you replied before I did so.

Thinking that I had your consent, I changed Mystery play and other church drama articles (such as the one linked above) to the main article rather than the art page. IMHO this is not "fiddling for the sake of it" but disambiguation.

Although you make a fair point that "Adoration of the Magi" is used chiefly in art, I do not accept that it is used exclusively in that context. As it is the traditional term, especially for liturgical denominations, I fear that various articles will be changed back by well-meaning editors to the old link in order to match neighbouring references e.g. Adoration of the Shepherds.

Nevertheless, I accept for now that it is not worth raising a proposal to re-link all art pages to Adoration of the Magi in art and to use Adoration of the Magi for, or as a redirect to, the main article.

Anyway, I have finished the cleanup that I was aiming to do. I'm disappointed to have lost your respect for now. I hope we will have the opportunity to collaborate more fruitfully in future. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant "mystery play". What on earth are "liturgical denominations" in this context? I doubt many links will get changed back. I'm sorry if I was testy, but this is a lot of effort for a very small gain. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans... I do not know how many still use the term "Adoration of the Magi" when referring to this gospel episode, but it clearly includes some Wikipedians.

In the end you were right about the scale of the gain. When I first saw the incoming links I was expecting to find more that were incorrectly linked to the art page. Nevertheless I think I have improved the linking on some important pages. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Year of Living Dangerously with American Actresses Playing Male Roles

Thanks for your close of Category:American actresses and my sincere hope that this issue is finally put to bed. I did notice your obiter dictum regarding the film The Year of Living Dangerously, a personal favorite. While my persistent argument across the actress categories had been that the real world distinguishes between male and female performers -- as evidenced in books, magazines and newspapers and in awards categories -- the other argument for keeping actress categories has been that men usually play male roles and women female roles. That may well be overwhelmingly true, but it's never been clear to me why this is relevant. The category seems clearly to me to be intended to include female thespians, regardless of the sex of the roles (or a role) that they might play. Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously is a woman who played a role as a man, which would make her an American actress as long as the defining characteristic is the sex of the person playing the role, not the sex of the role. Nor does it appear that Linda Hunt makes her career entirely or mostly playing male roles. There might be justification for a category of men who play female roles and vice versa, but I'm still not sure that this has any effect on any of the actress by nationality categories. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As Hunt won a Best Actress award for playing a male role, I threw it in as an interesting factoid. I didn't mean to be expressing an opinion, as I was closing. Since you ask, the attention given to Hunt's performance IMHO makes it an exception that proves the rule. Some editors think the rule is relevant, others don't. In assessing consensus, I found that editors' conclusions were 2:1 in favour of Keeping, and with strong enough arguments on their side to close that way.

It would have dealt with some of the opposition if the discussion on the head category had settled on "female actors". However, "Actresses by nationality" is back for now. Given that, it would have needed very persuasive reasons to diverge from that pattern, and most participants at this CfD !voted in line with it. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups.
Message added 22:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well said

Well said. [1]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

– Fayenatic London

Algonquian personal names.

I strongly feel that Category:Algonquian personal names should NOT have been closed as a delete / listify. There were hardly any delete votes, the few there were simply said "delete" without even bothering to formulate a cohesive argument, and very cohesive arguments were put forth to KEEP, but these were not responded to, addressed, or even replied to by those voting delete. I view this as a LINGUISTIC category, it should not be seen as an ethnic category or a biographical category. Attitudes like this are exactly why extinct or near-extinct languages end up disappearing completely, when what little information on the sounds of the languages there is, cannot even be collected in one place because someone "doesn't like it". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(CFD link)

The Delete votes cited WP:OVERCAT, an editing guideline, in particular WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES which applies directly to the case and which I find persuasive. Since you wrote your note above, I have added a link to this guideline within my closure at the CfD.

I do a lot of work on articles about human names, as a participant in WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy, but the articles in this category are not about names; they are about people. Loanwords, people/names with a shared derivation, and placenames with a shared derivation are IMHO valid encyclopedic info which should be kept in Wikipedia, but as lists rather than categories. Lists are better than categories for linguistic analysis anyway, as they can be analysed into whatever sections might be helpful – in this case, perhaps the various peoples within Category:Algonquian peoples.

I have started the list page at List of Algonquian personal names. Feel free to link to it in the "see also" section of biography pages, especially those where the name is discussed. – Fayenatic London 17:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding categories

Category:Algonquian peoples and Category:Semitic peoples are categories for articles about groups of people, more or less ethnic groups or tribes. By their very name they hold articles that are about a people, not individual persons. Thus they are not the same as Category:Algonquian people would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I recognised that, hence my comment about "different names and purposes". The point that I intended to make was that it was incorrect for another editor to conclude that "since we do not seem to [have Category:Algonquian people], we need to retain the existing category and rename it." That would be incorrect because of the WP:SUBCAT rule, since the biographies are already in sub-cats of Category:Algonquian peoples – a point that you made yourself later on. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Actress categories

Since you are the person who closed the CfD on Category:American actresses to keep, I thought you might be a person to tell about this. Some editors have tried to accuse some of the editors involved in adding to actress categories of being engaged in "sexist editing". This seems uncalled for intimidation of editors and really makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've just kept American male actors to match. I think that makes the way clear to go ahead and set up/populate more sub-cats. I'll have a look for such comments. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Male actors

Bad decision, considering that the film and actors project were only alerted about this a few hours ago. That's hardly a consensus. I founded WP:Actors and I find it ridiculous that we need to call them "male actors". We decided against "female actors" in favour of actresses, so if we're going to adopt that that we simply go for the old male equivalent. Ridiculous. Several of the most active editors on each project agree and you've not allowed time for people really involved with actor articles to comment. I suspect this will be reopened as a CFD later in the month.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear whether your comments relate to closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 16#Category:American male actors or re-creation of Category:Male actors. Either way, whether the female category is called "female actors" or "actresses", IMHO the structure should be the same, using sibling categories rather than parent-child. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts for CfDs are automated using the WikiProject links on category talk pages. The CFD was on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Article alerts from January 5 onwards, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Article alerts and the one for United States. It had already attracted considerable interest, so there was no apparent need to post individual messages to WikiProjects to attract further comments. I had considered the discussion the night before, and still felt in the morning that the outcome was clear-cut, so I closed it despite the midnight talk-page message to WP Film. I will repeat this message at WT:FILM. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#Proposed deletion of List of breweries in South Carolina

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 17:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Television series groupings by title character(s)

Hi FL

I have closed CFD 2013 January 19#Television series groupings by title character(s) as a mixed set of renamings and mergers, per the selection agreed by you and Fortdj33.

You kindly offered help to the closing admin, so here I am :)

Please can you check whether my closure summary accurately reflects what was agreed ... and if so, then implement it?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. IMHO the last one should also say "and Category:Television programs based on DC Comics"; I did that anyway. – Fayenatic London 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I upmerged the complementary parent categories on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_19#Video game micro-categories, so if you process that per the closure statement, no parents will be lost. – Fayenatic London 17:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. That's done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Persistent organic pollutants

Please can you exercise your magic again, this time on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 23#Category:Persistent_organic_pollutants?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, phew. Glad that didn't end up as "no consensus". Done, cheers! – Fayenatic London 21:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You could have told me that once, you know.

Thank you for telling me what to do and whatnot, but next time don't message-spam my talk. I get the point, and that wasn't really funny.

Also, you can go ahead and delete all the discussions, then. I'll just {{db-c1}} tag them. –TCN7JM 20:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page -- it was an accident caused by the computer or network connection playing up. – Fayenatic London 20:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI converting categories to category redirects is pointless, before Cydebot finished recategorizing the pages, because it deletes it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So it does. Thank you; live and learn. I had seen redirects in the left-hand column of the Working page before, apparently surviving as blue links, so I thought that Cydebot would skip the redirects when it came to deletion. I guess the blue links that I saw must all have been re-created by other editors promptly after deletion.

Presumably it doesn't matter whether we undelete the history or not? When I want a redirect, I normally do so, and then add the redirect template around the name of the new category within the CFD template. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Heads up: Suicide in Bangladesh

I have replied there --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Close of American actors by ethnicity CfD

Regarding the close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 19#Categories:American actors by ethnicity, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the consensus reached by the discussion was to support the nomination to upmerge the categories? Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair question. I have added an explanation there. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

CFD tangle

Hi Fayenatic

Something went wrong in these edits when you were adding a nomination to CFD 2013 February 27.

Whatever happened, you left it missing both the page header and a previous discussion. I think I have fixed it all, but just thought I should let you know. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BHG, thanks very much for spotting and fixing that. Yes, I have a recurring intermittent problem with the page disappearing on Preview/Save since "upgrading" to Win7 & IE9; I raised it at the tech village pump page, but nobody responded. It's usually just the section that I lose, but I'll have to watch out for the whole page disappearing like that. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Things sometimes go awry.

I'm surprised tho to hear that you are using Internet Exploder. Have you considered switching?

I use either Firefox most of the time and sometimes Chrome, and used to use Opera. None of that sort of prob with any of them. I know that IE has improved a bit in the last few years, but it has tended to be way behind the others in functionality and speed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is at work. Company policy! IE has been acceptable on speed, although I resort to a few tricks e.g. loading large pages on another tab in the background; and I like its flexibility with auto-filling edit summaries. I use Firefox at home for editing, as it also auto-fills edit summaries, but unlike IE I don't think it allows me to delete those that I don't want to re-use. – Fayenatic London 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor you; I hate when a company policy requires workers to use one particular tool rather than an equally good alternative which they may prefer.

I find that Firefox does allow me to delete edit summaries I don't want to re-use, tho only after I have used them, and provided I have no other edit page open at the same time. So on pages like WP:CFD/W which I edit a lot, I occasionally take a bit of time to purge them. Wish there was a better way of controlling it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Marcus Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 01:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Films based on Star Trek

Just letting you know that I have closed this CfD, meaning that Category:Films based on Star Trek appears to need creation based on your proposed tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; all done now. – Fayenatic London 13:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'm currently expecting to scale back my time working on the encyclopedia because of other commitments. This project is something that I would wish to support in principle, but sounds as if it could call for quite intensive attention, and I am not able to put myself forward for that at the moment. Regrets and best wishes – Fayenatic London 13:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Bible related articles that are mainly copies of old encyclopedias

They can drive you nuts. I once didn't realise that has happened and put some citations tags on material I was dubious about, and had them promptly removed as I was old it was cited from one of the century old encyclopedias we use. I gave up - it's still an article almost entirely copied from an obsolete source. We could use a working party to gradually rewrite such articles. Oh, I also tried to find some sources establishing notability for that church but failed. Dougweller (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

For my reference: this refers to [2] – Fayenatic London

Rainbow Codes category

I've removed all the articles from Category:Rainbow Codes (which you closed the CFD on) - adding the articles to the military equipment category where necessary. One article - Black Prince (rocket) wasn't specifically military so hasn't been placed in that category. The category still contains redirects. Is it ok for the cat to be db-g6'ed now ? DexDor (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to WP:CFDW to be emptied and deleted. Good work – Fayenatic London 08:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Were you after something in particular...

...with this edit? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd forgotten why I had your talk page on my watchlist, and since I recently found that archive boxes had a search function, I added one for you; hope you like it, or at least don't mind!

We last interacted on User_talk:Redrose64/unclassified_3#Row_alignment_in_template:Cite_book.2Fdoc … looks like neither of us could be bothered to pursue it. – Fayenatic London 23:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Template:Cite book/doc now uses the   method. I can't remember if I did that or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being a vandal fighter.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There was already a clear consensus by the time I looked on that day, so I didn't bother adding anything there. Although I responded last time, TBH this is not an aspect of Wikipedia that I'd choose to spend time on. Cheers – Fayenatic London 15:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Maybe you could contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#RIGVIR? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cork Gully

Hi,

My name is Angus Robertson. I have recently rejoined Cork Gully and Stephen Cork, the Managing Partner has asked me if we can agree a set of words which is acceptable to you regarding the entry in Wikipedia of the acquisition of Cork Gully from PwC.

If you would like to discuss this I can be reached on 020 7268 2150 or via email at angusrobertson@corkgully.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Angus Angusrob (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing your interest. Can we discuss the matter openly on the discussion page for the article, Talk:Cork Gully? Click "New section" at the top of that page to start a new section. – Fayenatic London 11:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

grain industry in western australia

re Category:Grain industry of Western Australia

Thanks for you questioning the category issue - please do not touch - trying to cope with a complexity of issues re the australian grain industry in general and the lack of adequate articles - thanks anyways - cheers sats 09:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oncolytic virus

Hi Fayenatic, I have done lots of work to improve the Oncolytic virus article, do you think you could review it if you have time? I took a lot of unnecessary details and stub articles and made Oncolytic herpes virus and oncolytic adenovirus out of them. Also many thanks for your copy-editing on virotherapy, all help is much appreciated as I seem to be the only person making any significant developments on these pages! Viraltonic (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and well done for your hard work! I tidied up some minor formatting points.

There is not much interest in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIGVIR, but technical requirements for sourcing indicate that RIGVIR as it stands may have to be deleted. However, as it is an active prescription medicine in Latvia, I believe that the sources are probably sufficent to cover it briefly within another article. Perhaps it should be mentioned in Oncolytic virus. Alternatively, what do you think about rescuing the page by moving it to Naturally occurring oncolytic viruses, removing the unsourced content, and adding in summaries of Reovirus and Senecavirus? If that strikes you as a sensible thing to do, we should propose it in the deletion discussion. – Fayenatic London 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see it is still mentioned in Virotherapy. Well, let's add sources.

I think there is scope for Category:Virotherapy, within Category:Virology and Category:Clinical research or its sub-cat Category:Experimental medical treatments; what do you think? – Fayenatic London 18:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking earlier that I should make a Naturally oncolytic viruses page, it probably would be a good place to put the Rigvir article. I have held back editing Rigvir while I do a bit of research on it, it is definitely worth a mention somewhere, but with less promotional language, and it needs to be made clear it has only had limited controlled testing. I will begin making changes as you suggest soon. Virotherapy still needs some work with reliable citations, will get onto that soon. Thanks! Viraltonic (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Also I think a virotherapy category might be a good idea, there are now quite a few articles on it and it will grow with time Viraltonic (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What parent categories do you suggest?

Also, do you think there is scope for Onyx-015 ever to be a separate article? If not, you ought to have used the Move (from the drop-down at the top right), as doing it by copy-paste is disapproved. As an admin, I can fix it by merging the page history. – Fayenatic London 18:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The parent categories you suggested are good, I think Category:Experimental medical treatments and Category:Virology for sure, also Category:Biotechnology and/or Category:Biopharmaceuticals. I'm sure Onyx-015 will be deserving of its own article any time soon but its not impossible if it does get developed further. But you are right I should have 'moved' it. Viraltonic 00:09, 6 April 2013‎

No problem; I have merged the page histories now. Thanks for the other replies; I've set up the category. If RIGVIR gets deleted and later you want a copy for reference, just ask. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, I have another request for your opinion, not my work this time. Oncolytic adenovirus has just been completely changed without any discussion on the talk page. The new article, while technically all very accurate and well sourced, might be too technical for a general audience, it reads like a scientific review rather than an encyclopedia. It also omits much of the previous information regarding clinical development and approved medicines. I have asked the author Lemms13 if they're finished yet and am awaiting a response. I don't think this article as it stands will be very useful to a layperson seeking more information. I will start a discussion at Talk:Oncolytic_adenovirus. Viraltonic (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Muslim saints

I closed this discussion but I don't know how to finish categorizing some as Sufi saints. Can you finish this off and then delete the category?--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I recategorised a few as Muslim missionaries or philosophers, and let others go as sufficiently categorised already. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

A cantonese tea for you for so gracefully picking up my MOS:ALBUM paste on the other RC. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yum sing! – Fayenatic London 08:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Faye Wong's Scenic Tour

The collection of five albums is not notable. Inherently notable or not, information from this article is best served in Faye Wong discography. I think it should be deleted without sending it to AFD, i.e. "proposed deletion". Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the box set is not notable and should not remain as a separate article. However, it has a little info that might be worth adding to the discography, e.g. that the bonus discs were included. In that case, the old page should be redirected to the discography rather than deleted. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You probably noticed that I merged and redirected this page. – Fayenatic London 17:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Toy (EP) and Help Yourself (Faye Wong album)

I want to immediately merge these articles, but I don't have confidence yet. Still, I think it would help improve the quality. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly an overlap in the content, and they are in the same categories. I don't know of any precedents for merging articles like this, but it could be an improvement. If you do it, I suggest moving one of the articles to the new page name, and then merging in the content from the other. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tb

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at [[User talk:Richard Harvey (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)|User talk:Richard Harvey (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ref placement

Hi Fayenetic, for your edit in Rajan Pillai saying "refs should be placed immediately after punctuation, on the same line to avoid extra spaces", I checked the guidelines for punctuation and footnotes (MOS:PUNCTFOOT). I did not see anything that said refs should be "on the same line". Do let me know how my citation style was going against the MOS or was creating extra spaces. Jay (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, pardon me if that seemed cheeky; I hadn't realised you were a longstanding editor when I left the summary.

In principle, I do like the way you were putting refs on the next line, as it makes it easier to read the text while editing. However, the wiki software interprets the newline in the same way as a space, i.e. it displays a space between the text and the citation number. Likewise, it displays spaces between citations if the raw text has successive citations on separate lines.

The MOS page that you linked above says "immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation (see exceptions below), with no intervening space."

I conclude that "immediately" rules out inserting a line break.

I think I previously tried editing in the same pattern as you did there, but went back to entering citations as contiguous text to avoid those extra spaces being displayed. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I compared the rendering of the two versions of the page - with and without the line break - and I see the extra spaces. But I think it looks neater with the space. I would like to understand the purpose of the no intervening space rule, and have started a discussion on MOS:PUNCTFOOT. Jay (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, well done on the article. It occurred to me ages ago that the subject was sufficiently notable. Have you submitted it for DYK? – Fayenatic London 19:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the pointer. I have submitted for DYK. Jay (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV?

The works programme not only brought the houses up to the Decent Homes Standard, but achieved marked improvements in energy efficiency as well as security, landscaping and visual enhancements.[7] Residents celebrated completion of the regeneration in October 2012.[8]

Gordo (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The main citation in support of notability is the Inside Housing piece, which majors on energy efficiency and mentions the other improvements, so I thought so. But it's not my article, so change it if you think better. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:No Regrets (Faye Wong album)#Re-expanding poll

They opened a poll. You can re-vote. --George Ho (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been helping out with a backlog at WP:CFD and not watching my watchlist as much as usual. – Fayenatic London 17:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Egyptian language

Of course I must have meant something else - Category:Ancient Egyptian language is an English phrase, not Italian. Anyway, that edit dates back to nearly one year ago, and now I can't find the corresponding Italian category. Ary29 (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BC Tourism region re Chilcotin page

All major ministry regions will have at least list articles, I've not gotten to doing the Tourism region ones.....List of Development Regions of British Columbia, List of forest regions and districts of British Columbia, List of Ministry of Environment Regions of British Columbia and the like are out there; someone has even started, rightfully, categories based on the legal land descriptions used by BC Names as on Land districts of British Columbia. BC Parks regions fall under the MoE btw, not under the MofTourism...subdividing/categorizing BC articles by regional districts alone has never been right.Skookum1 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

just noting that lower-casing "environment regions of British Columbia" without the "Ministry" in it would confuse things as a title, as it implies ecoregions and biogeographic zones and such.Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL we're almost back to where we started....I originally titled that "Chilcotin District" and that wound up having someone speedy that cat to that title, which is very problematic for a catname because of the capital 'C'...I've just gone through a series of CfDs this last month over name change first to "Chilcotin (region)", which was resolved by a page change to "Chilcotin region" and see User_talk:Good_Olfactory#speedying Chilcotin..... where I broached the subject of changing the cat to Category:Chilcotin to match Category:Okanagan and Category:Cariboo and others of that kind. The "country" appendage is very common and citable, the capital-C version is used but not as easy to cite....I'd never updated the listings on the template.....LOL here we go again.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, appears I was wrong about the citability of capital-C "Country", seems like it's more widespread now than when I looked a few years ago....there are way more for "region" but I haven't culled the wikiclones out of that. Major sites like BC Tourism and britishcolumbia.com and others are using it that way; ah, tradition, nice to see it still alive.....other parts of BC are getting "rebranded" all the time....Skookum1 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this at one place, Talk:Chilcotin Country. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Need a little help..

Hi Fl, I think the blue colour of Malaysian flag should be corrected as seen on Open clip art and this picture. The current colour are seen too far from the version on our country. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Flag_of_Malaysia#Royal_blue_or_dark_blue – Fayenatic London 19:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Y Already provide sources from the government here, could you remove the file protection so I can update the file? — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able. I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia, but not on Commons. I think it needs someone from the list at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_administrators - let's ask Zscout370, at that talk page. – Fayenatic London 11:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's ok. I already get a permission to change it on commons. Thank you so much Fayenatic for helping me about this issue! :-) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! – Fayenatic London 07:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Moon Represents My Heart

I found the article about copyrights, but I could not read the whole article. I was just able to find the identity of the writer. Can you help me add info about copyrights of the song? --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it says that Sun Yi (Sun Jialin) lost the court case, and Lige record company 麗歌唱片公司 has the copyright. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Domestic heating

I closed the discussion with your rename. Please restructure as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In looking at this, I wonder if one of the categories for some of these articles might be Category:Residential hot water? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I think I've finished that satisfactorily. I looked briefly at the head categories of Water heating but it didn't strike me as useful to separate it from domestic heating generally. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Although there is a potential sub-cat at Category:Boilers (cookware) ... – Fayenatic London 14:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

another "country" category BUT......

This one's problematic because of the differing US and Canadian spellings, and is being applied to categories where its subcategories already are, Category:Populated places in the Okanagan Country e.g. Category:Populated places in the South Okanagan on e.g. Inkaneep, British Columbia. Please see User_talk:Good_Olfactory#overcategorization_re_the_Okanagan.2FOkanogan.Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Multichannel video programming distributor

You objected to the article only being about the United States. Well, it is. And since the term is used in U.S. law, I think that gives us the right to make it all about the United States. I wouldn't know the first thing about writing about how it works in other countries, and I'm finding a ton of information about the United States.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work, and worth doing. Thanks too for notifying me here. You may have missed my main point, though; I replied at Talk:Multichannel video programming distributor. – Fayenatic London 19:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought of that, but I don't know of a general term used outside the United States.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested in looking at the article to see how I've done? Just to clarify, a look at the history shows I added nearly all the content of any consequence. Others corrected Wlinks and did other minor fixes, but the rest of it is mine.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for updating the source. Yahoo news does have a tendency to disappear. I guess your fixes are all right since we supposedly saw the same thing.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They were word-for-word the same story from AP. As well as avoiding citations from Yahoo news, I sometimes archive a story using http://webcitation.org if I think it might disappear. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ministers vs Leaders

I've just removed a couple of "religious leaders" categories from people who were previously justifiably labelled as "religious ministers". Is there a category (/group of categories) that these non-leader ministers fit into? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(Or is the definition of "religious leaders" now so broad that it includes lay preachers? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC))

Category:Christians by occupation should be the parent for missionaries; I anticipated this in the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_19#Category:Christian_ministers.

As for lay preachers, yes, I would be inclined to keep them in religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As for lay preachers, yes, I would be inclined to keep them in religious leaders. - Really? Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If they are categorised as lay preachers, their preaching should have been notable enough to be defining, so they probably did quite a lot of leading religious meetings. That passes WP:DUCKTEST for me, even if they were not paid or full-time leaders. – Fayenatic London 19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't considered them as "leaders", but your reasoning is quite logical. OK. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Marano-Grado Lagoon

Thanks for your kindness. You really made my day, when I realized that in wikipedia there are admins like you...thanks again, sincerely. --Compte2013 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

– Fayenatic London

I'll second that sentiment : ) - jc37 08:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

CFD FYI

Re this nomination—there were no comments; no opposition, so I closed it. Can I leave the doing of it up to you, or shall I place it at WP:CFDWM? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I found that only two new categories were needed as Category:Lists of country names was sufficient for the intended purpose of Category:Lists of country names by language. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Specific names issues

OK, maybe I should not be so impatient. Still, with your views on Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta, I think you would find the current discussion around Category:1939 establishments in Moldova very interesting. The frustrating part is a-someone created this category, b-it was speedy renamed to Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, c-about six months later I emptied that category, because the one entry was not created there, but in Romania, d-someone nominated Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic for speedy deletion as empty, e-someone recreated the Moldova category, and re-added the article to it, f-I removed the article since it clearly goes in the Romania category, and then nominated the Moldova article for deletion, mentioning that fact that there is the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and that that is the only logical meaning of Moldova in 1939, g-the people opposing the deletation accused me of being disruptive, when it was one of them who recreated a category that had been speedy renamed, and it is clearly acceptable to remove an article from a category it does not fit in, I guess maybe I could have been more transparent, but it is very frustrating. It is extremely frustrating because they are acting like there was no Moldova in 1939, when in fact there very clearly was a place that would be refered to as Moldova, it just does not share the same boundaries as the modern location, and in fact, depending on how you view Trannistria, may not coincide at all with the modern nation. I seem to be writing lots on this matter, and having people totally ignore what I am saying. It is very frustrating. It also sometimes feels like some people are trying to oppose every proposal I make and to attack me for even trying to make the categories more precise. Some of the "x category exists and we should respect that" rhetoric seems to be founders right, and deferral to one editor because they were more industrious. It is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If it seems that you are being ignored, it is sometimes because you also ignore what other people are saying. I had forgotten, or missed, that there was no consensus at the Turkey & Pakistan discussions in December, and have suggested at the current CFD that we need a centralised discussion. Why not start one, as you have so many similar cases in mind? – Fayenatic London 18:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

cfd

I'm starting to wend my way through the unclosed discussions.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12#Category:African-language_surnames - I saw you presented several ideas for renaming here. I'm leaning towards upmerging (as I noted there), but would be interested in your (and of course others') thoughts. - jc37 18:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ireland categories

As I understand it, Ireland categories usually contain sub-cats for the Republic and for Northern Ireland. Therefore, Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland should be in Category:People by city or town in Ireland, not just "see also'd". See, for example, Category:Cities in Ireland. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(With apologies to those who do), on the constant arguement of Ireland as a country vs Ireland as an island, colour me in as "I don't care" : )

I just closed that per the discussion.

If there is some guideline/policy I missed somewhere that had broad consensus, please let me know, as it should be given the weight it's due. But I didn't see much, except concerning the separation/distinctions of ROI and NI.

If a broader discussion is needed, or if specific categories need to be discussed, that can be done too.

All that said, I obviously welcome your thoughts on this. - jc37 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:IRE-CATS is a summary of WP Ireland's conclusions on this. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A nice page. Looks fairly clear in layout. Unfortunately, one person wrote it, and one commented on it. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms lists some past discussions.)

Maybe we should nudge them to gain consensus on that. It would be nice for cfd commenters to refer to in the future, and to aid collaboration on this topic.

In the meantime, as far as this close, NODEADLINE comes to mind. If it turns out that that page gains consensus to be a guideline, then it would presumably be a simple matter to implement it in this case. Until then, I closed per the local consensus discussion : ) - jc37 21:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

hi, the ireland category norms can be seen in the tree overall, which represents consensus. Feel free to enquire over there about whether a NI cat be in the ireland parent. I personally think its an exaggerated guideline - even though i wrote a lot of it (others did help, just cant find the talk now). In any case, that is the consensus, and no-one has opposed it or disagreed with it, so we should put it back under ireland.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not finding the consensus you speak of. But the past aside, it should be simple enough matter to post a link to the proposed guideline, and start an rfc on it. - jc37 06:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion included comments by BHG, who is well-informed on this area, that People by city in Ireland should be split into 2 sub-cats for NI and the Republic. Instead of that, People by city in Ireland was merged into the "by city and town" category, so that point is moot. I don't see any mandate for excluding this Northern Ireland category from the Ireland hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, no reason this should be any different. Jc, I don't wanna hold an RfC on the weighty matter of Ireland's overly complex category tree as I'd love to blow it up someday, but that won't get consensus either, so for now I toe the line but I don't wanna go out of my way to enshrine that overly complex system any further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(de-dent) - I understand, however, this is about consensus. You took the time to write up the guideline, asserting that it represents current consensus. The way that we wikipedians show that is by having a discussion on it.

And though BHG may have our respect, she is just one Wikipedian. Just as each of us are. And honestly, have either of you ever known her to shy away from discussion? : )

Anyway, let me repeat, I honestly don't care one way or other how these things are categorised. But to revert contrary to a closed discussion is obviously inappropriate. The typical option is drv. And, as always, I'm fine with that. But consider that what we're talking about with a drv: it's a discussion. So should a drv discussion be started because you would prefer to not start an rfc discussion?

If there is already consensus on this, then an rfc at the Wikiproject should be a fairly simple thing.

And again, NODEADLINE, obviously applies... - jc37 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I still cannot see how you conclude that the CFD discussion had a consensus to remove Northern Ireland from membership, rather than to create a separate sub-category. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I must concur. a DRV is a bit excessive - normally you talk it out with the admin, which is what we're doing. If we ask a few others to join this thread and comment (or bring it over to Ireland), and the consensus there is to keep NI under Ireland, will you reconsider? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I welcome discussion : )

For example, I've suggested repeatedly that you could start a discussion on the proposed guideline.

But reverting a closure just because you disagree with it, is obviously not the way to go. It falls under "disruption", as I'm fairly certain you both know. I've seen people blocked for that before.

Anyway, Yes, I welcome discussion, and yes, a broad consensus on this would also be welcome. - jc37 06:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#RFC:_Categorising_Northern_Ireland_under_Ireland – Fayenatic London 07:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion.

I've been tempted to drop a note there myself as this continued, but have been thinking that, as closer, it would probably be better if you or OWK started it.

As an aside, if you are interested, please check out OWK's talk page. I'm not sure what the final straw was, but regardless, I hope it's a short break : ) - Wikipedians willing to positively discuss, sincerely trying to contribute to the project are definitely to be missed. - jc37 15:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeat closure of repeat CFD

I was about to close the CFD on Los Angeles, but then noticed that it was me who closed the last one (2012 Dec 2). Should I avoid closing it on that ground alone? I'm not sure who else is left that hasn't participated! – Fayenatic London 21:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Afaik, it doesn't prevent you. However, part of being a closer is discernment. So if you feel the community is better served of you step aside, and thus someone else closes it, then, follow your discernment.

And it looks like this is moot, as someone closed it already (and before I could respond to some "fascinating" comments there : ) - jc37 06:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI note

I posted a closing note on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GrahamWPhillips case here, in case you didn't see it. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I would have missed it. I added a response there. – Fayenatic London 09:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Before commenting on any future cases, I would really recommend that you do some wider reading of sockpuppetry-related pages. Of course it was not your intention, but your comments created a lot of confusion. I'm happy to clarify any SPI-related questions you might have. Best, WilliamH (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. When I first saw the case, I thought there was a miscarriage of justice, particularly as the case had already been closed by the time I saw one of the user pages on my watchlist. I looked into it thinking I might find evidence in favour of the user, but in the end I was persuaded by the evidence against him. Let me know if I can make amends e.g. by responding to his appeal, as I was not involved with the original decision. On the other hand, it may be best for me to leave this to experienced hands, and perhaps I would be considered WP:INVOLVED by now.

If anything would be served by pointing me to the confusion that resulted from my comments, please do. Use email if that would be wiser. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)