Welcome!

Hello, Fayenatic london, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Powers ^T 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the Single-grain experiment article. It earned a DYK on October 12. I really appreciated it. Chris 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and I will adjust accordingly. Also, could you please post something on your user page. I am asking this to find out information about other users and in an effort for you to avoid potential vandal issues with other user in the future. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! Fayenatic london 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wongfaye.org/forum/files/1103451979_117.jpg

couldn't find a photo with another angle, but I remember clearly seeing this makeup during some songs in her 98 concert. I didn't know what else to name it so I just went with my first thought.

OK, thanks! I hadn't seen that look before. Fayenatic london

I read your message, and to my response, I don't translate Chinese or Japanese very well, but I researched the Japanese song remade into successful Cantonese song a long time ago, and i know that the song in kanji is in Japanese article of Miyuki Nakajima. Hope that helps, right? --Gh87 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic! Yes, a "Japonica" redirect (or perhaps a disambiguation) page is a really good idea; the name is still quite commonly used, in my experience, but, because it is such a common specific epithet, searching for it brings up more than 11 pages, and Chaenomeles doesn't appear until the bottom of the fifth page! A redirect would mean that anyone typing japonica and clicking Go would go straight to Chaenomeles. On a disambiguation page you would be able to explain that it is commonly misused as a common name for Chaenomeles species and hybrids, list a few links to other species, and explain that, if they weren't what they were looking for, typing japonica and clicking the Search button will bring up many more options. SiGarb | Talk 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic. Well done with the Japonica disambig page. I've made a few improvements (I hope!). SiGarb | Talk 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Faye Wong article has too many subsections, like "1999, secret era". There's too many, there's like one for every single album she's released. Some of them should be merged, it ruins the article. ― Sturr ★彡 ^Refill/lol 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for your note! What you outline has certainly reflected my own disposition, as an Anglican of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion, and I support any editorial activity which would bring greater specificity to the terms. Nonetheless, I caution you that the usage of the terms Catholic vs. Roman Catholic has occasioned much lengthy and heated debate - most of which can be found in the archives of Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, I will support you in your efforts - and wish you all the best. Cheers! Fishhead64 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for catching that. Those were old footnotes from History of South Korea which became dissociated when I spun the article off from there (something which I somehow failed to notice at the time). I've patched them back in. -- Visviva 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any formal restrictions on {{linktext}}; I and some others have been using it for a while, and so far no one has objected. ;-) It looks like there are a couple hundred articles using it now. I'd say just use common sense; if you think putting the template in will add useful information, put it in. I've tended to avoid using {{linktext}} in Korean given names, since there has been dispute about how much emphasis we should place on hanja in those cases; there are probably some other cases where it would be considered inappropriate. I assume no one would object to using on Chinese given names, though. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know it, but if you want to avoid using a template within another template for whatever technical reasons there may be, you can use
[[wikt:first character or word|]][[wikt:second character or word|]], which will probably yield much the same results as {{Linktext}}. Wikipeditor 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you have contributed to the Chinese singers article and that you have also voiced your opinions on the necessity of the page on the article's talk page. I wanted to let you know that the current article is a proposed Article for Deletion. You may wish to speak on the article in the current discussion. Luke! 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This change introduces a bunch of grammatical errors. Groups and communities are not "who"s, they're "what"s, so "which" is the appropriate indicator everywhere you changed it. Tomer^talk 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. You've done an excellent job there. If you do remove it from your watchlist, consider coming back to it in a week or two just to check up on it. :-) Cheers, Tomer^talk 10:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really positive if they're the same person. Why don't you try making a request at WP:RFCU? Khoikhoi 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the case you made on this user, you need to explain what the policy violation was in order for the case to be prossesed. Code letter F does not seem to apply. Prodego ^talk 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

Hello there. I was just wondering about whether this category was really accurate, given that "miniseries" is not a term that's ever really used in the UK for home-grown products; "serial" is generally used, "miniseries" being an Americanism that tends to only be used here in reference to US imports. Therefore I would suggest that the category ought to more accurately be called "British television serials". Angmering 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly copy the discussion to the talk page there if you wish. And I don't see the presence of some British productions in the general miniseries category as evidence of usage here — they could just as easily have been added to the category by Americans. Definitions of the term ma be trickier — the British Academy Television Awards include two-parters in the "Best Drama Serial" category, so basically it's any production of more than one but a finite number of episodes, where one over-arching story is told and concluded in the final instalment. The Forsyte Saga, for example, was a 26-part serial. Angmering 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]