User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive10

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Profkls's talk page.
Message added 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Profkls (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Message from Bostonian 2

Dear Fayentic,  Bostonian 2 here. I understand your concern about the connection with Mike Bond. We don't want to be associated with a Spammer no more than you. We hired him to create two articles for us because he told us he was an expert contributor and also, we were wary of managing edits as it is hard to understand from an infrequent Wikipedia publishers point of view. In the end, we used MB only briefly - and will not be using him again.  I am very concerned that considerable work went into creating two profiles we are more expert on than anyone - the MF profile - founder of ALISON - and the profile on ALISON. How can we get these articles re-instated? We believe they were done correctly and meticulously.  Not sure how else I can write a note to you - sorry for any inconvenience.  Thanks.  B2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.13.96 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please hang on...

For reference while considering this: articles were ALISON (company) and Mike Feerick. Remaining citation for ALISON in Massive open online course is Early MOOC takes a different path, InformationWeek; the first paragraph seems to confirm notability of the organisation, along with citations in the deleted page.

My initial thought on the founder is that he should be mentioned in an article on the company but may not meet WP:BIO for a separate article. – Fayenatic London 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have reversed the deletion. The fact that Bostonian 2 says he has renounced his association with Mike/MooshiePorkFace does not change the circumstances under which it should remain deleted: it's by a G5 banned editor. In hindsight, I should not have unblocked Bostonian 2, but the now-present claim of dissociation does not change the behavioural context of the article. WilliamH (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I hadn't realise that MooshiePorkFace was blocked before creation of that article. Anyway, I see you have not re-protected the page; does that mean you would not object to the creation of a fresh article? – Fayenatic London 19:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

So long as it has been either completely rewritten, or has been completely checked by an editor in good standing, not at all. For example, here is an article created by the same banned editor. Over half of the sources are actually press releases published in ostensibly admissible outlets, and source 8 is presented as an article in The Guardian, even though the only instance of the subject in the entire page is a press release in the reader comments section. What this guy does to both Wikipedia and his clients disappoints me very much, but if the project's goal is our first priority, then we are right to treat his articles with such prejudice. WilliamH (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK then. Points noted and accepted.

Bostonian2, you are unblocked, and there is the start of a new article at ALISON (company). For a short time, you can see what you added before here; I will delete this once you have made use of it to expand the article. Please do not paste in other parts of the old text, as it was written by the banned editor in contravention of his ban; but you can re-use whichever citations are from reliable sources, and re-write the text. If the facts stated in the infobox are from good sources, you can paste that in. Feel free to ask here if you need more help. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) I seem to have accidentally wandered into this. I've put another source on ALISON (company), but coverage in two opinion pieces doesn't really make a notable company in my view, and it's tempting to send it to AfD on that basis. Feerick, on the other hand, seems to be notable for this and for "Ireland Reaching Out" which has some news coverage, and I think on that basis he just about gets past WP:GNG. I think that should be the main article with ALISON as a merge / redirect. How do people feel about that? Normally I'd just boldly do it, but I realise a number of admins are keeping an eye on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. IMHO there's enough to keep the ALISON page, with the sources on the old copy (linked above). I'n not convinced either way on the other pages, but let me know if you need help to unprotect them so that you can start new articles. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the old copy - just noticed it now. That actually makes a difference and pushes up ALISON's notability a bit. In any case, now Feerick's article is unsalted, I have passed it through AfC as it seems to sufficiently meet our notability guidelines. It looks like Bostonian2 has disappeared, but he's got his two articles now and has hopefully learned that paid editing just seems to end in tears. All's well that ends well. In the meantime, I've copied the basic links to the sources in your draft into the current article's talk page, so as far as I'm concerned, you can delete it now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Foo people" on cat names has two meanings even in indigenous areas

So, as I've explained countless times, "FOO people" is what Obiwankenobi described as a "namespace collision". "Squamish people" is no better than "Squamish" as a category name, as it will be seen as "people from Squamish" even though you've created the comma-province version. So, look, here's an example of a category Category:Cree people that's about "people of Cree descent", but who are full Cree, not partial and/or non-status like Shania Twain. "FOO people" should be reserved for "people who are from the FOO" and its application in your closure, and in the host of articles Kwami recklessly speedied, is going to keep on causing problems. I've begun the guidelines that should have been codified years ago; Phaedriel isn't around any more, OMR is boycotting the place because of insensitivity by "settlers", and I think the same is true of User:Murderbike and other indigenous contributors.Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I am neither of NA descent, nor "boycotting" the project, I just don't have the desire to spend as much time on the computer as I used to. Murderbike (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I did what I could to avoid confusion with "People from Squamish" by adding a "Not to be confused with" link on the page Category:Squamish people.

You've made some points since the CfD was closed, which would have carried weight if you had made them while the discussion was running. For instance, you referred a few times to Category:First Nations in British Columbia, but only pointed out after the closure that Category:Sqwuwx7mesh would have matched all the other members and Category:Squamish people does not.

Actually I did say that, more than once. And I also pointed out that e.g. Category:Cree people was a "people who are Cree" category, adn that "Squamish people" means "people from Squamish". I made those points so many times I feel I was blue in the face.Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that my closure was "wrong" in the sense of finding a consensus in the arguments that had been made. There was a clear consensus to move from Category:Squamish, but no consensus as to the new name, so I had to make a choice, and I explained my reasons. So, I do't think I can go back and revise my closure.

However, I believe that I have left the door open to a further move. Well done for starting work on guidelines. Once they have been accepted by a consensus on the WikiProject, feel free to take this category back to CfD.

When that day comes, I recommend you to prepare your arguments in advance and list them by numbers. Then if someone asks a question which sounds to you as if they did not read them, you can say "see reason (4) in the nomination above" (as opposed to, for instance, calling them names). – Fayenatic London 13:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Votes made by the uninformed and incorrect should not count towards consensus, it's not a democratic vote. Others familiar with the town and the people agreed with me, ots were present who were also in the St'at'imc, Nuxalk, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc and Ktunaxa RMs - all of which were in danger of producing unworkable "FOO people" categories becauase their anglicized names are also major regional or town placenames in BC. I said these points to many times and was supported by people who know the subject, that all the non sequiturs that came from people people who know nothing about either subject drowned them out. Consensus is not a vote, it's a weighing of the issues and the context. This was a bad call, and it was a frustrating CfD to see dragged out so long by the same inane and wrong points being raised over and over again by people who know nothing about Squamish, the Skwxwu7mesh people, or even Canadian First Nations affairs. Those who did supported me. The RM has to be overturned, it was faulty in citing all the speedy changes by kwami as examples, and yes, it's used up so much of my time and energy I feel like quitting Wikipedia once again (last time was because of a gangf&&k over the presence of COI/POV articles from the Harper government, "voted" on by people with an admitted partisan bias. I've started those guidelines, and will summarize the consensus that informed editors created years ago, which need codifying for sure, and now who the f**k knows how long it will take to build it and then get it approved. The use of procedural wrangling to stall and mis-judge things I see all the time in Wikipedia, and all too often I'm of the opinion that those obsessed with name/category changes are only there for that, and don't write any articles on the topics that they come by and weigh in on with their stupidity and lack of education, and they all get their little pants in knickers when faced with something longer than two sentences of ten words each. As you said in your closure, it was a "close call" but it's still wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sport multiple merges

Did you look at the sport ones from April? I did and don't understand what needs to be done, so I can't do those. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:1996–97 in Irish rugby union is an example where some members should go in Category:1996 in Irish sport, some in Category:1997 in Irish sport and some into both e.g. 1996–97 European Challenge Cup. I'll have a go, starting at the top. – Fayenatic London 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I finished those lists from WP:CFDWM. Can't say I enjoyed the task, but at least I did it to my own satisfaction. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not get off with out work. I was deleting those that were emptied. I think that pretty much takes care of April. With May being emptied yesterday we have major progress. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Now we are overlapping... List of Byzantine Latin loanwords in Greek – Fayenatic London 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea only one left! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We are doing well. – Fayenatic London 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: PDAB

How could I forget that?! Thank you, I'll add it to them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again. Sorry to bother you, but another photo (more like a new set of photos) has been found and uploaded, and added to the choices in the discussion. A new issue is which photo those who participated before that photo was added would have favored had they seen it, so I'm requesting that all those who did so view the photo and indicate whether or not their favored photo has changed. Thanks, I really appreciate. Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians

Hi, please could you chip in at WP:Articles for deletion/List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians - I'd appreciate your input. SmilingFace (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Language isolate

I need your opinion on an editing undo. Could you look at my Talk page?CorinneSD (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Music therapy

I wondered if you could tell me what to do when I want to make a comment about an edit (on an article I had been editing a few days ago), when the editor has only a number (an IP address?) and no Talk page. The editor seems to know something about music therapy and made a substantial edit, but one edit does not sound right to me.CorinneSD (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You could tag it as {{citation needed}} if you think it might be right, or simply remove it if you reckon it is wrong. In the latter case, if you are unsure, leave a note on the article tall page.

Sorry, I'm not going to be able to look into your other questions below for a few weeks. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Beadwork

If you have time, could you read my comment on the Talk page of the article Beadwork under the heading "Native American beadwork"? I'd appreciate your opinion and assistance. CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dill

If you have time, could you look at a recent edit by Jaxelrod to the article on Dill. I don't understand his removal of a chunk of text just because citations are missing. Also, regarding another recent edit to the same article, how does one decide whether information belongs under "Cuisine" or "Medicinal uses"? Was it correct to move information that had been in the "Cuisine" section to a newly-created "Medicinal uses" section? Just because dill happens to help reduce gas, does eating foods with dill constitute a medicinal use? I didn't say anything to the editor. I just wondered what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Professionals - notice of discussion

You may be interested in the deletion proposal related to Category: Professionals. Regards, X Ottawahitech (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism

If you have nothing else to do, take a look at the recent edit exchanges in the Hinduism article. – CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Question on CfD

Hello, Fayenatic london,
I have a question on a CfD decision. In this instance from July, the consensus was "listify and delete...also, recategorise".
But following-up on this, I'm not sure whose responsibility it was to carry this out. Right now, the CfD tags are still posed on the category pages. What normally happens in these cases, does the nominator carry out the decision or does someone usually step up and take care of things?
Thanks for any information you can provide. I'm still learning my way around the CfD area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

This task is listed for action at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. That page is currently much shorter than it was a few months ago. There are a few users who keep an eye on the page and get round to acting on things listed there sooner or later, including me, but anyone is welcome to help – please jump in if you are interested! – Fayenatic London 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Fayenatic, I didn't know this subpage existed! I'll check it out now. Thank you for telling me about it. Cheers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Faye Wong

Hi Fayenatic london, recently, there has been an anonymous IP user at the article Faye Wong changing the content without any references. You've made essential and extensive contribution to articles relating to Faye Wong, can you come look at the article?--Thomasettaei (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am not gonna remove "Chinese" since Hong Kong is a part of China. But Faye Wong is definitely a Hong Kong artist, 1) Faye moved to Hong Kong at the age of 17, she moved back to Beijing because she married a mainland man Li Yapeng（after 2005）, but throughout her carrer the majority time （1989-2005）she was stay in Hong Kong, not Beijing. And she is a Hong Kong citizen, not Beijing. 2) Her first 6 albums are all cantonese albums, Faye released her 1st mandarin album in 1994, which is her 7th album "Mistery"（迷）. And that was firstly released in Taiwan, not in mainland China. 3) Her was named 7 times of "Most Popular Hong Kong Female Artist" （亞太區最受歡迎香港女歌星）and several times of "IFPI Hong Kong best selling local singer" （IFPI香港最高銷量本地歌手獎）awards. 4) In all music/movie award ceremonies she is classified to "Hong Kong-Taiwan Artists"(港台地區） from she released her first album till now. She was never been named an award about mainland china part（內地）. 5) Faye's first concert was held in Hong Kong (1994), as well as her second concert (1998). All of the live CDs (最精彩，唱遊大世界，菲比尋常) she's released are all pick form Hong Kong concerts, that's what all HK artists normally do. I just wanna say Faye is a HK artist that is common sense in Chinese people including Hong Kong and Taiwan people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.90.18 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible nomination of a GA article for FA review.

Hi Fayenatic london. Your user page seems to indicate a good editing background/peer review possibility in theology-religion articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading of one key book if this might be possible for you. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love." Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not read the book. It looks a substantial and worthwhile work, but unfortunately I do not think I would be able to fit it in within the next couple of months at least, as I have rather a lot on my reading list at the moment. I have also cut down markedly on my Wikipedia activity, and have never done much on GA/FA article status anyway. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 22:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too busy to do these photo discussions any more; please take me off your list. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 19:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Institute of Management Accountants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Financial management (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthony

Should all those people (and more?) be merged into Anthony (given name) (or perhaps to a different page)?

• If no, please explain why not.
• If yes, I would think that since you're the one who removed them from one page, it would be nice if you would please complete the task you started, and merge them into the other page (Anthony (given name), or a different page). -- -- -- 01:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus not to make lists of people sharing a common name. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_(given_name)&diff=568212145&oldid=568208541 - the edit summary has a link to a deletion discussion confirming this approach. So, there will not be a list of people within the article about the name, nor a freestanding list.

As for the disambiguation page, this can still have a list of people known by that name alone (surname not needed), e.g. kings and saints; see MOS:DABNAME.

I realise that there are others still out there. They should go. Hope this helps – Fayenatic London 07:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Luxembourg-ish

Hi. I've noticed you've been involved in discussions about the use of the term "Luxembourgish/Luxembourgian" etc. in the past and I would be grateful if you could make an input into the (hopefully last) discussion on the topic at the Luxembourg Wikiproject. Thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Moving a page

I'm really sorry about that. Forgive me. I shall ensure it is never repeated. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing help

Please see question regarding the article on Lenition in my Talk page. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Old CFD

Hello, I stumbled over this old CFD that you closed but it doesn't appear that the close was implemented. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. This task is on the working list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual and, as parts have been moved from one part of that page to another, it seems that someone has done part of the work already. If you would like to help, that would be very welcome. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Crown Prince's talk page.
Message added 00:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Crown Prince  ^Talk 00:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Link in CFD closure

At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_7#Category:Survivors_of_stabbing should the link be [1] ? DexDor (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; it worked at the time! I have fixed it now. – Fayenatic London 19:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ping

I've responded to you on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Grace Baptist Church

Hi, I notice you just edited a page in User:NationalRegisterBot's userspace. The reason that showed upon my watchlist is that bot is operated by me. I would like to point out that it is common practice not to edit in other user's userspaces, but the main point of this comment is to say that the edit you performed was unnecessary anyway haha. The list you edited is updated ~weekly via bot and so your edit will be written over on the next bot update, especially since the page has been moved yet again since your edit.

This is not meant to be a chastisement or anything--I'm not really that "protective" or whatever of my userspace--but more of a heads up for future edits.. if any other articles are disambiguated/moved and you want to fix links to dab pages, you can skip any in NationalRegisterBot's userspace since they'll be automatically updated anyway. The main link to fix for dab pages about NRHP places is the link on the relevant county list, which I see you took care of anyway, so thanks for that.

One thing I would like to ask is the reason you decided to delete Grace Baptist Church? You claimed in this move that there are many churches with this name.. then shouldn't there be a disambiguation page there? If the Spokane church is the only one with a Wikipedia article, I feel like the parenthetical is unnecessary disambiguation.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I realised that the bot would update the page, but as the last weekly update was earlier today, I thought I'd update it anyway in case the list is used for other bot processing.

You're very welcome for the edit to the list. Any deletion process should involve resolving redlinks created by it, so I think it's just good practice – albeit often overlooked.

As for Grace Baptist Church, check "what links here": three unrelated links from different places in North America. There are also Grace Baptist Churches in the UK. I'm mulling over whether to create a disambiguation page at Grace Baptist (another location where I just moved a page without leaving a redirect) for churches, schools, Reformed Baptists etc; then Grace Baptist Church and Grace Baptist School could both redirect there. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there are many Grace Baptist Churches around the world, but how many are notable and thus likely to have Wikipedia articles? My guess is not many. As such, I think it might be necessary to move this article back to the undisambiguated title. Then if you make a dab page at Grace Baptist, Grace Baptist Church would be an entry on it rather than a redirect.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if no others are notable, I don't want the current redlinks – or new links for other places – to go to an article on the wrong location. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fayenatic: regarding Fusion (student movement) page

Thanks for your message. I can confirm that the updates were genuine and completed by myself at the Fusion office. Please could you submit the previous information or alternatively I can register as a user and change them again (if you were able to send me the previous changes). Thanks, Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.61.154 (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, thanks for being open about that. In terms of what's acceptable on Wikipedia, that amounts to a conflict of interest; please read the policy page WP:Conflict of interest.

The changes that you made are available for all to see from the "View history" link at the top of the page.

Please note that the article was deleted, restored, and probably would have been deleted again if I had not added these paragraphs and citations.

It appears that you did not like that material, as you have still not explained why you removed it, but it was supported by citations from independent reliable sources. Note that material which is critical of an organisation does at least confirm its notability, without which we would not keep an article. In contrast, the references that you provided instead seemed to be closely related to Fusion itself, i.e. primary sources, which are not relevant for notability, and are less acceptable for verification except for limited types of information (see WP:SELFPUB).

Also, a lot of your version was copied and pasted e.g. from http://www.fusion.uk.com/hello/what-we-do which is a violation of copyright, unless you go through certain steps to release the information into the public domain – and frankly it would be easier to rewrite it in your own words!

Have a look at the "best practices" page linked from the WP:COI policy – it is probably best if you make suggestions on Talk:Fusion (student movement) and let others decide whether to implement them.

Hope this helps – Fayenatic London 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. This is helpful information. We wanted to have a page that reflects who we are and what we do, hence why I have copied that from our website pages. Surely it is OK for us to put that on our own Fusion web page if we wrote it ourself? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.61.154 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Fusion website is of course for you to write. However, you do not WP:OWN the Wikipedia article about your organisation. The article should reflect who you are and what you do, and your history, as reported in independent sources and (if necessary) your own published information. You are conflicted and should not edit it directly, although you may suggest revisions on the talk page.

As for direct quotes from your website, the Wikipedia article can quote key text e.g. vision and aims, but other statements should be rewritten.

Despite these restrictions, I hope you will stay interested in improving Wikipedia. Lots of articles on Bible topics and other Christian subjects need work. WP:WikiProject Christianity may be a useful point for collaborating with others. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Can we get this page deleted? The information on here is mostly outdated and not notable. We no longer outwork our vision through cells etc and have updated partnerships. Can you help me? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.61.154 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I did some more work on the article – how is it now? You appear only to be telling us about the UK side of Fusion, but Wikipdia articles should present a global perspective; Fusion's US website still says cells are important there, so I clarified that.

Please let me know about any more recent press coverage and I will be happy to incorporate it. – Fayenatic London 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK

DYK... that Art Nouveau furniture was criticised by the English Arts and Crafts movement for not being "honestly" constructed? Gordo (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Luther Eugene Woods

re [2]

Hi, Fayenatic london, I noticed your edit. FYI, this was whom I was referring to. Just wanted to let you know. Lotje (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guessed that you would notice via the Notifications, so I didn't post a note on your talk page. How come he is not listed at United_States_Senate_elections,_1924 or United_States_Senate_elections,_1928 – was it some other Senate that he was elected to? – Fayenatic London 13:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Fayenatic london, in all honesty, I do not have a clue but I added his name here and there, and maybe someone will be able to find the answer. Lotje (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too busy to do these photo discussions any more; please take me off your list. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 19:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC) rpt 23:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing Template:The Nag Hammadi Codices Jerm729 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you! It's been a while since I was given one of these. What a nice way to end the year. – Fayenatic London 23:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting extra template

Hello again,

I just found another template exactly like the one I made for the Biblical judges: My own: Template:Biblical Judges & the other in a talk page for proposal changes: Template talk:Judges I hope you would delete my own. It seems useless. — Thank You — ♣Jerm♣729 06:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)