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]

Well, if you look at Mackensen's comment, he says, "this seems pretty blatant to me". WP:RFCU states for "obvious, disruptive sock puppet" that "no checkuser is necessary". Therefore, do you want me to block the sock for you? Khoikhoi 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since 165.228.131.12 (talk · contribs) appears to no longer be blocked, I suppose it doesn't matter anymore. However, if the anon gets blocked again, and uses the account to evade the block, I will block it indef. I've just reverted and warned him/her on Keystroke logging—please let me know if he/she persists. Thanks, Khoikhoi 05:11, 13 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]

Hey there! Are you the same Fayenatic that's on Lj? Nice meeting you :D Thanks for fixing the userboxes! I got lazy, haha.

My snail mail contribution is a bit too detailed and small for the mail art article, but thanks for the pointer. :)

Take care. Tiara 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is better to avoid the use of the disambiguation restrictor (e.g. Climate (disambiguation)), as readers will only get there from hand-crafted links. Far better that readers and editors see right away that the term they are linking to is ambiguous. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

Wikipedia:Disambiguation talks about a “well known primary meaning for a term or phrase”, but I think that one should err on the side of generality. For example film buffs think that Chaplin (1992 film) is clearly the primary meaning of Chaplin, but many readers are looking for Charlie Chaplin. So Chaplin should be the disambiguation page. I try to overcome my own prejudices in making that kind of decision.

I will look at Zechariah (disambiguation). We need to be alert to keep disambiguation pages from becoming articles. It may be appropriate before doing any more online editing to put some things together in your sandbox. For example, and I haven’t done more than just glance at Zechariah (disambiguation) so I may be all wet, but you might think about making the commonest spelling an article about the various Zechariahs in the Bible, with a link to the Zechariah (disambiguation) page for all other uses. In order words, violate what I just said in the paragraph above. I am heading off to lunch, so I will say more later. --Bejnar 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I like your scheme, with a little modification. I would make Zachariah or Zechariah the main disambiguation page, but I would consolidate all of the biblical material into a single link to Zachariah (biblical) which would then be its own article, with headings for one paragraph descriptions of Zechariah (prophet), Zechariah (king of Israel), Zachariah (Mary's Guardian).etc. (all those with separate articles) using the template:Main to point to those articles, and then a section, like you have it with all the un-articled biblical references. The value would be that the main disambiguation page would separate out the biblical seekers immediately and they would get the whole story on their own page. The non-biblical seekers would not have to wade through the biblical stuff to find, for example, Pope Zachary (741–752) or Zachary, Louisiana.

It is important to distinguish between a disambiguation page such as Zachary or Tamil, and a content page such as Tamil language. I am suggesting an article format for the [Zachariah (biblical)]] page starting with the entomology of Zachariah.

As to Zachariah as a first name, I would have the last section of the main disambiguation page be entitled ==As a first name== and only include actual Wikipedia article there, no red ink. I hope that this is the kind of review you wanted ? --Bejnar 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed consideration. I'm not convinced about taking the main Biblical Zechariahs off the main Disam page, as most searchers will want either the prophet or the priest. However, the minor characters certainly need to be moved out of the way, so that readers can see the medieval & modern ones who do have articles. Rather than add a further article as you suggest, do you think they could just be moved to a ===Minor Biblical characters=== section at the foot of the Disam page? (*) The advantage of your proposal is that it saves getting a groan from unimpressed readers with no detailed interest in the Bible.

Well done for finding Zachary -- I think that it needs to be combined into the main disam page too.

I now propose Zechariah (Hebrew prophet), Zechariah (king of Israel) and Zechariah (priest) as new titles for existing articles. Zachariah (king) should be copied into Zachariah (Khazar) and the Khazar template amended accordingly. (*)

A new page Zechariah (prophet) could disam to the Hebrew prophet and to the Islamic prophet Zakariya, or it could redirect to the main Disam page. Likewise, Zachariah (king) (existing page) could either disam to the articles for the kings of Israel and of Khazar (*), or redirect to the main Disam page. What would you advise on those? Fayenatic london 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: items marked (*) above have now bene done. Fayenatic london 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would an administrator now move Zechariah (disambiguation) to Zechariah which is currently a redirect page. I've changed all important incoming links to the new main article Zechariah (Hebrew prophet), and will deal with the remainder later. There is also more for me to do on Zachariah and Zachary, and I will move the minor Biblical characters off the disam page to a new Zechariah (biblical) page as suggested by Bejnar above. Fayenatic london 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has responded. Perhaps you can take the issue to WP:ANI. Xiner (talk, email) 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about WP:AIV? If there are blatant vandals out there (such as the linkspammer you reported to KhoiKhoi), and they have been adequately warned, list them on this page and they'll be zapped quicker than you can say "IP block". Thanks for helping out! yandman 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Category:3-letter acronyms is a category of PAGES, while Category:Lists of three-character combinations is a category of disambiguations, that would be the only objection I have, but if you want to discuss merging the two then make a listing at WP:CFD. Happy editing! --Daniel Olsen 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex already blocked him. :-) Khoikhoi 05:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]