User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive05

Archives

Archive 1 (9 Sept 2006 - 20 Aug 2007) Archive 2 (21 Aug 2007 - 17 Apr 2008) Archive 3 (18 Apr - 31 Dec 2008) Archive 4 (1 Jan - 31 Dec 2009)

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, I probably added it to my watchlist, so you can reply there if you prefer and I should still read it soon. However, I no longer check Wikipedia every day, so please also leave me a note or a {{talkback}} here. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the deletions page log thing, it said it had been settled as not going to be deleted, so I removed the tag????Engineman (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Avram (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Avram (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MegaSloth (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fayenatic London. I don't quite understand this edit of yours. Could you please explain the deletion of the Emerson LaSalle hoax to me? Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It was by Special:Contributions/Indefiniteintegral, all of whose new articles known to me – Leibniz function, Leibniz differential, Fermat differentiation, ‎ La'kalai and Aru'kiruna – were hoaxes. Somehow I miscalculated and thought the time and dates that he recorded for Emerson LaSalle did not correspond, although in fact they do (oops). I therefore guessed that the hoax had not been there as long as he said. I see you're an Admin; if you can confirm the creation date for that article, I will be happy to reinstate it in the list with apologies. - Fayenatic (talk)

No problem. The Emerson LaSalle article was created 27 November 2007, at 22:36 by User:Gorjus. Thanks for keeping a watchful eye out for hoaxes. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I canceled your Merge proposal. Please see the

Good call. I might do that, if you don't do it first. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a (slight) chance that a legit bio can be written. I've asked others to look into it too. There is plenty of legendary material available (of very predictable, stereotype quality - one could almost say it's a genre), the problem is figuring out how much - actually, how little - has a factual substratum that can be reliably sourced. People who haven't seen this kind of "literature" before can be taken in, and have been. rudra (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be in safe hands so I'll stop watching it and let you carry on, as I have no sources to contribute. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: [[1]]?? Springnuts (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. I've rearranged it again, though. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noted that you deleted the note I added to Three Wise Monkeys suggesting a possible origin of the original Chinese maxim in Hebrew literature and documenting a plausible mechanism for its migration into China. Can you explain your motive for this deletion? With the earliest referenced Chinese instance of the maxim in the 8th century, and both Christian and Jewish presence documented in China well before that, it seems to me that this hypothesis is entirely plausible. Isaiah's form of the saying aligns extremely well with the iconography of the carving on the stable at Tosho-Gu in Nikko:

Isa 33:15 that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;

The last two fit perfectly; the first is not represented on the shrine, but is reflected in the four-clause version of the underlying maxim cited in the article.

Capturing possible cross-cultural linkages like this that might not be noted by any single author is, it seems to me, one of the great strengths of Wikipedia. It is a fact that similar sayings circulated in the Levant and in China, and linkages between the two areas in the correct chronological sequence (between the origin of Isaiah's version, and the first appearance of the Chinese version) are well documented. Can you explain why you didn't want to let stand a note calling readers' attention to the possibility of a connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Van Parunak (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the article being moved to the later name - but it would have been good if you had asked for opinions first. Never mind - we'll see if anyone else objects. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page name did not match the subject shown in bold in the first line; it should, see

WP:BOLD! Best wishes, Fayenatic (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps you can give guidance on how to proceed. In terms of reliable sources, I think I qualify (PhD from Harvard in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures with specialization in the Old Testament, 1977). The observation in question is so specific that I doubt I could find a journal interested in it (though if you can suggest one, I'll write it up). But the idea occurred to me in the course of an ongoing exposition of Isaiah in which I'm involved, and which is publicly available on-line (http://www.cyber-chapel.org/sermons/isaiah/index.html; the observation in question appears in footnote 6 on p. 8 of http://www.cyber-chapel.org/sermons/isaiah/notes/Isaiah33.pdf . Is such a reference sufficient to serve as a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Van Parunak (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I know there is

other stuff of the kind, but it gets challenged and eventually removed. For instance, the personal theories at Jesus wept #Interpretation

all need to go, except for Warfield's which states the author (an established exegete) and provides a citation. I've been meaning to put in some stuff from respected commentaries and delete the rest.

In the light of http://www.cyber-chapel.org/about.html I do not think it would be possible to demonstrate sufficient academic peer review. The sermons on that website appear to be the work of yourself or others closely associated with you.

citing oneself

. Regardless of whether I agree with your theory, unless and until you get it printed in an academically-reviewed Bible commentary or similar, I don't think there is a way to publish it here.

However, please consider joining

WikiProject Bible, or one of the others listed at Portal:Christianity/Projects, as there is a lot of substantial and more valuable work to be done! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In case you see this, I apologise for giving offence. We're both working hard to improve this encyclopedia; in fact my edit count is

You wrote that you were not sure what I was implying about you. I only meant that we would both be better off improving articles than trading remarks. Most of your edits to the article in question are justified and I did not attempt to revert them. Anyway, thanks for forcing me to track down a demonstrable

I just came her to let you know I had apologized to you on my page, too. Obviously, we both want what's best for the project, but I was being a complete jerk. I'll try my very best to not let a bad day bleed over into Wikispace again. — Satori Son 23:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi. the luis palau template refers to the fact that the article portrays him as a liberal out-of-the-box preacher, which is debatable, and that he has been involved in some controversies that are not even mentioned. the other one, refers to only one section which seems to always give the last word to the foundation side.--camr ^nag 00:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply at Talk:Emmanuel Schools Foundation#Article Issues. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you many times, Fayenatic london. Have a great day! --

]

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For rooting out hoaxes in even the most obscure corners of Wikipedia. Your efforts are seen and appreciated. — CactusWriter | needles 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you keep barnstars around, but this was an interesting find. — CactusWriter | ^needles 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the award! I was amazed to find that the para had been around for so long, partly because it had even been embellished (apparently in good faith) along the way! - Fayenatic (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I havent seen that before it was made by using http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks seems that has made error or something --Typ932 ^T·C 02:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw where you've done some editing to this article. I've tried to cut it down some, mainly to remove the peacock terms and other brochure-like marketing material. I'm also concerned that much of the recently added material was copied straight from a book and not re-worded to avoid copyright issues. I've taken a stab at cleaning it up some, but would appreciate another set of eyes. Thanks! TNXMan 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have access to the book so I've left the plagiarism tag, but I've deleted & revised a lot more and was content to remove the other tags. Have a look now. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do review the plagiarism tag, as I thought the article was worth for DYK! - Fayenatic (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements look great! All of the weasel words and spam are gone and we are left with quite an impressive bio. Thanks again for cleaning this up. TNXMan 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree! Sometimes a COI contributor + an experienced editor can make a decent article. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to improving this page with helpful edits. Thanks for nominating the page to appear in the "Did you know" section; I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and it's been an encouraging learning experience. Hopefully, I've addressed the [expand] and [specify] tags adequately. - Mbtso (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and yes you have! By the way I should not have implied that you necessarily have a conflict of interest (although some previous single-purpose accounts editing that article alone did give that impression). - Fayenatic (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic London: We have The Mail on Sunday Story. How should we proceed. Monika London (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your merge of this article with Play Therapy. They are not remotely the same thing. Should this not be discussed first?Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article Theraplay said that it uses play therapy, so they are not as remote as you suggest. I explained both in my edit summary and at Talk:Theraplay what I was doing and why. If you have the time to create a better article on Theraplay, with citations, that would be good, and I would be willing to help with formatting etc. Note that I added another online source on the effectiveness of Theraplay to the bibliography in Play Therapy, which had been given on the talk page. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well play therapy is a mainstream generic therapeutic tool. "Theraplay" is a named, specific therapy with Capital Letters. I suppose the main difference is that play therapy is broadly non-directive and theraplay is very specifically directive. Theraplay is also somewhat controversial. There are issues around the use of touch and holding and it gets promoted by those practising the extremely controversial Attachment therapy. However, it has alos been used in the Head Start programme. I don't know a huge amount about myself but there have been issues in the past here with some editors trying to name it as an "Attachment therapy" and others claiming it is mainstream and evidence based and not an "Attachment therapy" at all. Probably neither view point is either fair or neutral but certainly none of these views, issues and controversies relate to simple play therapy. It is certainly not as simple as saying it should be merged simply because it says it utilises play therapy or is a bit of a stubby article. Can you please un-merge it and restore the status quo so the matter can be fully discussed on the talk page. I would propose to seek the opinion of psychology project members. There are several there who have expertise in the area of infant mental health. I think I did dig up some sources about research at some point a while back but there wasn't an awful lot. I'll see if I can find anything else.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also - if your concern is lack of citations, that is just as much a problem with putting the material into the play therapy article is it not? The play therapy references do not cite/support Theraplay but it may well create the impression that it does. Do mainstream therapists accept the tenets of Theraplay? I've found this source in a 2008 book here which gives a lot of detail about research conducted a while ago in Germany and Austria. I agree the article needs a lot of work, but I don't think merging with play therapy is the answer.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the "I added" link above shows, I did add citations and links for Theraplay when I merged it, although I didn't check every part of what I merged. If you know better, feel free to undo or edit what I've done to

Well feel free to improve it yourself.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Theraplay, like any "proprietary" treatment, should be discussed separately from a general approach. If it doesn't go into a separate article, it should be set off in its own section, so it' s clear to readers that these are not simply synonyms. In this case, by the way, it would probably be wise to look at ways play therapy is used by psychologists and how those compare to its use by OTs, special education providers, etc. Also, it would be good to discuss "Floortime" (which looks much like play therapy at first glance) and note what the differences are. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nominate ) 00:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Chauncey Kirby Replied on my talk with links. I think you could go ahead with the move if you like. Happy editingOttawa4ever (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] DYK for Gregory Henriquez On 13 May, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gregory Henriquez, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! That was a nice surprise. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Conflicted licensing on image File:Li Lili 1930s.jpg The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've had a another go at meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All#Other countries , in particular: Whenever an image is tagged using one of these tags, the image description page should also contain some rationale as to whether and why the image is presumed to be in the public domain in the U.S., too! Please check it again. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Insomnia Coffee Company Entered some impartial informational and reference... =] --NorthernCounties (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] DYK for Office for Budget Responsibility nominate ) 12:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Mail on Sunday Ronnie Hunt Hi This is the actual story reproduced at coronation street updates, it appeared exactly this way with the old photo of Ronnie in the Mail on Sunday. We are getting the actual newspaper and seeing about uploading it. [2] Kindly Monika London (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, that was only a summary. However, I've resolved this at last thanks to this copy at findarticles.com. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reviewer permission Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010. Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages . When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here . If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Phil Chang name linking Hello. I'm replying to your message on my talk page. I can't find any explicit policy that states that an infobox heading or opening line should not link to the constituents parts of the person's name (surname, given name, etc.). My main reasons for delinking were as follows. (1) In the vast majority of biographical articles I've read, the parts of subject's name are not linked in the first line or infobox heading. In the extremely rare exception, it's basically been a case of intentional overlinking by vandals. Sometime an explanatory sentence within the article links to the name, as in an article for an individual politician that notes that he belongs to Kennedy political family with a link to an article about that family. (2) The discussion in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) about overlinking and not linking to commonly understood terms. I've been fixing links to disambiguation pages and didn't find any reason it would be particularly helpful to readers to link to the disambiguation page for the name Philip. Elsewhere in the article, it's noted that his surname is Zhang. If you think there's significant value to readers in linking to the surname Zhang, then I don't anticipate contesting your decision. You appear to be versed in Chinese culture than me, so you may know if it's helpful to readers to get that info about his surname. It's atypical to link infobox titles, but you can exercise you're judgment about where to put that link. --JamesAM (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Nomination for deletion of Template:Peisl Template:Peisl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Faye Wong is my favorite singer. I think her discography section needs some work though. What do you think of my question posted at Talk:Faye Wong discography? Timmyshin (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Notability tag on Laila (musician) I removed the notability tag from Laila (musician). This artist, I believe, is notable, though she is a one-hit wonder as far as I know. She had a charted hit in 1998 that was widely played on urban contemporary and contemporary hit radio stations and on countdown shows around that time, and still is played every now and then. I placed the expert tag here because online sources, while they do exist, are hard to find, and I believe most of the sources that do exist can be found offline. It would be helpful if someone could find out exactly where her one album and song charted and information on her personal life. Shaliya waya (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Chartered Accountants Hi Fayenatic. I do not pass word of a mouth or gossips to wikipedia, I added ACCA and other appropriate institutions to "Chartered Accountant" section based on the reports by UK Professional Oversight Board. Report clearly indicates that there are more than 3 Chartered Accounting Bodies in UK (please see here: http://www.frc.org.uk/pob/publications/pub2013.html ). If someone is a member of a Chartered Accontancy Body - that person is a chartered account. Please re-edit your post and correct additions I had made. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu99 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Horatio Nelson move Please help WP:RM? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Allow links please Mr. Fayenatic, I import Sunlight Household Soap and Red Lifebuoy Soap into the UK for distibution in the UK, Ireland and Europe. All I put on the Wikipedia sites for these products is my web sites. I don't advertise and say "use this, its the best" or anything like that, i just put links. All I put on Wikipedia is information. There are many other companies names and web sites on the Sunlight and Lifebuoy pages of Wikipedia. I have so many customers who have been looking for Sunlight and Lifebuoy Soap who thank me for finding out about me through Wikipedia. Surely this is not such a big problem in light of so many other corrections that are needed on the pages of Wikipedia. So can these links stay please. RJL London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.141.241 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hi Mr Jupiter, somebody else deleted your link altogether, but after you put it back the second time, I moved it to the proper place in the WP:EL. How's that? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Christian school Thanks for your changes and notes. By the way, it seems to me that this edit falls under WP:SOAPBOX, but I try not to revert twice in a row, especially for a new user. Your thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] You're welcome. Well spotted; I thought that edit belonged on the talk page rather than the article, so I moved it. Assuming you're watching this page: please remember to " subst" welcome/warning templates! - Fayenatic (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] DYK for Leonard Curtis DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] DYK for Street pastors DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Courcelles 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Cyndi and Cindy This may require your attention... MOS:DABNAME.[reply ] Thanks... I went on to Cyndy and Cynthia as well! Please don't take offence if I reverted anything that you did on Claire etc; I haven't gone stalking you, but as far as I remember you made several helpful edits. I hope you will enjoy doing more in the future to sort out name and disambig pages, and remember the invitation! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Thanks for your help with the merge/split; I'm glad to help out any way that I can, and if I didn't I would at least have learned something for the future. NaSpVe :| 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Free school Hi, now that WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGatalk 11:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Hi, most of these are from five templates. I did trace and update these straight after moving the page. However, for some reason it can take a day or longer for a Wikipedia system process to update the "what links here" part of the database. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, the transcluding pages have to recompile, and that always takes some time. Thanks for helping out! --JaGatalk 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] DYK nomination for Terry Byrne Hello, your nomination of Terry Byrne at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 01:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your quarries about article : Ambarish Srivastava Respected sir Fayenatic london, First Thanks about your quarries at Ambarish Srivastava. Humbly, I am trying here to provide answers to your quarries related to above page. →Poetry: section Quarry: What are Anubhuti and Swargvibha -- places or organisations? are they notable? There are no articles to explain their significance) Answer: Anubhuti and Swargvibha are prestigious based magazines of Hindi poetry. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_in_Hindi http://www.sarai.net/publications/readers/01-the-public-domain/136-139hindi.pdf http://techshali.com/12-sites-for-hindi-poems-kavita/?replytocom=2610 →Published Construction related articles section: Quarry: Tag as translation needed and verify-source as article is only in a blog, does not seem to be a reprint from a professional paper Answer: Its translation has been made and it is also published in a national level magazine named “Dreams India” which will be sited cited very soon. →Professional memberships section: Quarry: What about IIT Kanpur? If he is a member of it, move "and" from before NICEE. What is the "connection" between his membership and his creative works? Answer: He is a member of National Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering (NICEE)[28] of IIT Kanpur in connection of sharing practical knowledge to his creative works. →Top section Quarry: Tag directory name for translation and to verify its significance Answer: His name is included in the Rashtreey kavi Sangam Nirdeshika (Translation: National Poet conference) which is the Directory of national level poets. http://kavisangam.com/ http://www.bhartiyapaksha.com/?p=9017 Thanking You again, Best regards Spjayswal67 (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] DYK for Terry Byrne On 24 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terry Byrne, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] RE Welcome Fayenatic - many thanks for the welcome message. I am trying to get the feel of Wikipedia by doing some basic edits to the history section of company pages; you may have noticed that so far they are all in the construction industry. I have noticed that many entries are written without reference to mainstream published work. I have looked at the style guide and that seems broadly in line with such standards as Hart's Rules and the Economist Style Guide. The technical requirements of inputting seem very complicated at this stage but I think I have now mastered links and references. Next stop is talking to people so I hope this message has been done in the correct manner. Regards Bebington (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re: Infobox UK school Looks like someone else fixed it before I woke up :) Good shout though, thanks. I fixed another issue - we may well be there now. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 08:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re: COA Solutions Just a quick thanks for the edits you made, saved me a job although I've updated the page again now with more information and the new logo..cheers Saigon2010 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] SRK Hello Fayenatic, Not sure what is going on at WP:PEACOCK. User A1 (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Check the edit history -- you reverted to someone who added "Super Star"; "superstar" (or even "megastar") is fitting in SRK's case, but removing it is fine by me. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage Hi. As you recently commented in the Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply ] GAR notification An article that you have been involved in editing, Igor Panarin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. PwC Name Change Noticed you changed PricewaterhouseCoopers to PwC. I'm not sure if that is the right move as "PwC" is really only a branding and not the official legal name of the network or member firms. Example, the US firm is still legally PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP but uses PwC in branding material. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crkey (talk • contribs) 00:10, 4 October 2010 I judged that it was appropriate, following the policy at WP:COMMONNAME. Press articles generally refer to PwC. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Paul Kemsley Hiya--I have a comment about the edits to Paul Kemsley's page. I randomly know a lot about Paul Kemsley and have a couple suggestions to the revisions for what is written. I may not be doing them correctly because I'm new to the whole thing so if you have any suggestions, would welcome the advice. He actually won the lawsuit against Spreadex and Green never offered to lend him money--that's just heresay. I don't have formal sources, hope that's not a problem. "However, in September 2008 he placed a series of large bets that doomed US bank Lehman Brothers would recover, and in May 2009 the spread betting company Spreadex took legal action against him, claiming that he was liable to pay a margin call of £2 million. His friend Green was reported as offering to lend him the money to meet the call.[6]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegreen5 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Lack of formal sources generally IS a problem here. See Wikipedia's core policies WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. The Observer's longest article on the subject was in May 2009,[3] and stated, "In that [court] ruling, it also emerged that retail tycoon Sir Philip Green volunteered to lend his friend £2m to meet a margin call." So that seems like a reliable source. It's a matter of judgment as to what information is sufficiently notable to record in Wikipedia. Other news media (Times, FT, Mail) also considered that the Lehmans/Spreadex story was worth reporting, so I think it should stay. However, that point about Green was only reported once, so if someone deleted it, I wouldn't reinstate it. It would be helpful if you would make edits one at a time, stating the reason for deleting information which was sourced. Some of the words that you added to the article do seem strongly supportive of Kemsley, so it would be helpful if you would declare an interest if you have one. As a minimum, you could delete the sentence about Green with an edit summmary like "removing a sentence about Philip Green as I have personal knowledge that it was just hearsay." If you have a close personal involvement, please see WP:Conflict of interest, and consider recommending changes on the article's talk page instead of making them yourself. Hope this helps! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Jehovah-shammah Thanks for your work on this article. It is much improved.Editor2020 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I thought so too :-) but encouragement is always welcome! - Fayenatic (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Poplar Hospital Thanks for sorting out the wrong info I added about the hospital. That's what comes of relying upon imperfect old memories and not sources! Anyway, I looked it up and - having seen I was wrong - went to revert my edit but saw you'd done so and added the correct details. It was a quite a place (never was a patient but visited a few times). Plutonium27 (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Scottish Widows I would remind you of the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked 11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reasonability_Rule Administrators must be diligent in observing the Reasonability Rule when enforcing policy. Is it reasonable to conclude, by using Wikipedia policies, that a particular article should be deleted? The webpage at http://www.happywarrior.org/widows/widows01.htm is a factual description of a significant event which affects millions of people. The only criteria you seem to apply is that it is unfavourable to the organization. Are they paying you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.236.207 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No-one is paying me for my editing. I was removing links to a self-published story that was not featured in the text of the articles on LBG, PwC, IAA, ICAEW, ICAS. I will desist from removing it from WP:IRS), then I suggest that you summarise it in the text of that article citing those sources. If those sources published substantial allegations against the other bodies, which would be sufficiently material in the context of the history and appraisal of each organisation overall, then they might also be incorporated into those articles. As it is, the links just look like random spam seeking publicity, and it was entirely proper to remove them. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply ] London Wikimedia Fundraiser Good evening! This is a friendly message from haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com. Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Matharu Hi Fayenatic london Please see my note on Talk:Matharu page. Intothefire (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:Wikistalking and now you are adding WP:Canvassing to this. Please stop. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Hi Fayenatic london Thanks for your detailed response . Your suggestions are well taken and will certainly assist me in improving my contribution to Wikipedia . I normaly desist from deleting content from the page , because this inevitably leads to edit warring .Problem is that an anonymous user comes along and inserts unreferenced content , or "phony referenced" content .Another new registered user comes along and deletes .Then a registered user comes along and keeps reinstating the unreferenced or disingenuous content . Citations from blogs get ingeniously inserted or wikilinks are cloaked to seem like citations . Other times references are provided for books without pages . or books with pages but completely false content attributed . better still write a line , then add a word and provide a citation for the word ...and presto the line seems to look like it has a citation . Anyway to my mind the talk page has as much significance as "the page " . When someone (as for instance the user called Sikh-history) begins to even delete discussion on a talk page then we really do need to sit up and take notice . Regards and a happy new year to you . Intothefire (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Maybe you need to WP:AGF instead of making baseless accusations. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply ] Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive05&oldid=1142999904" Toggle limited content width