User talk:Panyd/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still Active, Just Might Have a Few Days In Bed[edit]


:)[edit]

Hey, you might like this script—it makes clearing the RfPP backlog a little bit easier. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do like this script.
Yours sincerely, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your admin action at Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant.

Perhaps you could have a look at likely meatpuppetry at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Johnnydowns_and_blocked_user_Vegetablelasagna1?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Cirt: but every time I go on ANI I end up with death threats for months, usually not from the people involved in the particular incident. I do wish you luck though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fag Army AFD[edit]

Not sure if you noticed there was another article embedded in that AFD called Donbass Association. I know it made no sense to have them in the same AFD but there it is; I see you made no pronouncement on the second article in your closing comments. Vrac (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agreement.
Regarding "no sense to have them in the same AFD". Both articles were by the same editor and both had the same issues. Organizations with only one event covered in reliable sources, an event that appears to have been illegal (assault of a cabinet minister and party leader with a pie; hanging posters on non-authorized places in Malmö). The Donbass Association Malmö should just be deleted. is a 23:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody had discussed the second article in depth, and the little discussion on it appeared to be about whether or not it was suitable for inclusion in the AfD itself, I didn't feel it was appropriate to include it in the AfD decision. However, I am more than happy to list it as an independent AfD on behalf of the users involved with a link to the original AfD. Would that be ok? @Is not a and Vrac:. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I see there is a PROD, so this might not be necessary, although I find the wording somewhat problematic) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a proper AFD would be in order since it never really got its day in court on the last one. It has the potential to be too controversial for a prod. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that a PROD would be easiest, given that the principles of notability were fresh in people's minds, especially since the initial author graciously accepted a proposal to merge the Fag Army article. However, a properly independent AfD was a reasonable choice. :)
is a 08:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PP on Executive summary [edit]

That was good idea if they can resolve their own issue assuming good faith. But any way, dispute has been closed here [1]. I requested page for protection so that they could solve their issue on talk page rather than reverting and edit warring in article. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 14:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Minkowiski: Wow...I wouldn't want to be Wehwalt. As I said, please do resubmit if they're really incapable of talking. Or just ask. I've absolutely no issue with protecting it if a gentle request fails. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not me, I didn't close that dispute. And I didn't say they should bicker it out with edits and reverts. We both assumed good faith and ask them friendly to finish it. Was I actually wrong by requesting it just for PP so that dispute resolution should not be done with edit warring? A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I'm confused. I know you didn't! And I know you didn't suggest they should bicker it out either. You weren't wrong for requesting PP, and it's a good tool for ceasing edit warring and letting cooler heads prevail. As nobody appears to be breaking the three revert rule though, I am prepared to give them a chance to talk about it on the talk page. It's just a chance though, and if they don't take it then I fear PP will be necessary to get them to slow down and actually reach a consensus. I feel dispute resolution may be a good idea. (I was saying I didn't want to be Wehwalt because I wouldn't want to be in the firing line for closing anything at ANI :p) Please feel free to let me know if they continue without talking and I will happily protect it. Or you can request it again at PP. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is under my watchlist now, will let you know if they don't resolve issue gently on talk page. I would definitely go for PP request if they resume edit warring in article. Yes you were right, it was enough advice to both of them to cool down in first attempt :) A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 15:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Within scope of PP?[edit]

Panyd, first of all, thank you for protecting the Mustang page. Second, is it within the scope of your duties to make a small disambiguation edit? The bot told me aI forgot to dab "extant" to extant taxon in the one place it appears. If you can just do that, I'd appreciate it, but if I need to do it as a request at the talk page, I can make a request there as well. Please advise. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I live to serve! I've changed this, but for anything more substantial you will have to ask on the talk page. Hope that helps. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, no worries, thanks! Given that you protected the "right" version, I'm reasonably content for the moment. Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cautionary Tale of Two Admins, Both Not Doing Their Due Diligence, and Throwing AGF to the Wind (don't do it kids)[edit]

(See below for the outcome and how we're all good people). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD help[edit]

I appreciate your help with the AfD discussions about Swedish articles, Fag Army and Donbass Association Malmö. thanks again! is a 14:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I am very sorry for the incident this morning. I mis-identified you and took a horribly wrong action. Good faith contributors should not be blocked without a warning (or several). Jehochman Talk 14:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry I didn't do a more thorough check of what had happened after the original incident at the SPI. Now lets pretend this never happened and get back to enjoying our mutual hobby! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unblock message doesn't reflect the erroneous block. Would you like another admin to put in a 2 second block to allow us to annotate the log to reflect how inappropriate the original block was? Otherwise, users looking at your block log historically might easily assume you had been rightfully blocked. Spartaz Humbug! 23:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not good. Would translate as "this person did something blockable but should have gotten a pass because they're a a) admin, or b) wiki-insider. A simple, neutral "Consenus is block was made in error." with no diff would be much better. NE Ent 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's editorialising on your part and you are partisan in this situation.Its reflecting Jehochman's own text that he made the wrong decision blocking. Spartaz Humbug! 14:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above by NE Ent. The block log currently reads: User request (a.k.a. I did), User request (ditto), blocked for Edit warring, 'Will assume user agrees, will leave an explanation'. Probably good to round that off with "Consenus is block was made in error." as that is an explanation. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I got the gender wrong -- sloppy of me 'cause I'm singular they almost all the time. NE Ent 01:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your awesome humor in the recent and quite horrid event, The Blockening, I award you this barnstar of indefinitely unblocked humor. Dreadstar ☥ 23:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic and Latino Americans[edit]

Would you please extend the protection a little longer. The warring lasted for at least 20 days. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: - I really want to do the minimum necessary with regards to admin-only protection. They have two weeks to cool their heels and discuss this issue. As I said, if they start slugging it out to the point where it gets disruptive on the talk page, I think a block is in order on both counts. If they start up again and instantly go into edit war mode, I think a block is in order on both counts. I don't want to hinder the efforts of other, more productive editors on account of two people. Does that make sense? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dancedom[edit]

Please re-check higher up on their user talk page.

There are warnings going back a long, long time.

Warnings by multiple editors other than myself.

Including adding info sourced to Rotten Tomatoes with no link, and no date, etc.

Behavior is continuing even to this present day, with additions of unsourced info about WP:BLPs.

Despite multiple warnings.

— Cirt (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: - I think a short block to stop the immediate damage is probably in order, and a longer one after if they continue, but if you read those messages I see absolutely nothing specific to their circumstances. Just warning after warning after warning disambigs and 'unsourced' or 'unreliable source'. I'm not saying they should run around doing it, but think about that from their perspective. Nobody has told them anything specific to their editing patterns. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. User_talk:Dancedom#September_2013 = warned by C.Fred, unsourced changes to articles.
  2. User_talk:Dancedom#October_2013 = warned by AussieLegend for making unsourced changes to articles.
  3. User_talk:Dancedom#January_2014 = warning by Doniago for making unsourced changes to articles.
  4. User_talk:Dancedom#April_2014 = warning by STATicVapor for unsourced changes to articles.
  5. User_talk:Dancedom#May_2014 = multiple warnings by STATicVapor and Musdan77, also for unsourced content additions.
  6. User_talk:Dancedom#December_2014 = 'final warning for adding unsourced content, given by McGeddon.
  7. User_talk:Dancedom#January_2015 = warning for adding unsourced content, given by IPadPerson.

These all have links to the relevant pages with instructions about editing Wikipedia and adding references. The very first warning by C.Fred includes the helpful text: " I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Total Drama All-Stars episodes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you." I don't see how that's not enough warnings or helpful instruction? — Cirt (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar behavior has been exhibited in the past by accounts Razzinator (talk · contribs) and Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs). It's quite possible the user will sock through the block period. — Cirt (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a total softy, but to my mind that is a water-tight argument against them 'not knowing' as a later defence as well as being helpful! Has there been an SPI regarding the other accounts? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There've been a few SPI investigations into Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs). I understand being a softy, but what part about the warning by C.Fred from September 2013 was not instructive enough? Was it not helpful of C.Fred to link to pages WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:REFBEGIN, and his own talk page? Please, enlighten me about how the warnings by C.Fred, AussieLegend, Doniago, STATicVapor, Musdan77, McGeddon, and IPadPerson, did not have helpful information about Wikipedia site policies and guidelines about adding sourced info? — Cirt (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong or 'deficient' in giving a person a warning. It has the relevant links, the community has agreed those are good templates. If this is a sock, they should know better. If it's not a sock, and it's just an incredibly bull-headed user who doesn't know what they're doing, then even if they do deign to click the links, one could argue they don't understand the content. However, I personally have an issue with the fact that nobody wrote to them. That is a personal opinion and I feel entitled to it. Now that things have been spelled out in the clearest possible terms, that any adult should comprehend, they have a guide map. Don't follow the guide map or take the assistance that has been offered to you personally? Then you're showing deliberate contempt for procedure and going off on one because you're convinced you're right. Giving them a small, personalised note in a case like this is taking WP:AGF to the extreme. Cross that threshold and then you can proceed accordingly. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, especially when there are so many warnings going back that far in time with that many helpful links from so many different editors warning the user. — Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fair enough. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. :) — Cirt (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang[edit]

We have reached a consensus to not capitalize mustang (that is, Montanabw relented), so can you unprotect it now? See the bottom of Talk:Mustang. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully that's the end of that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Panyd, I'd appreciate it if you would continue to watchlist the article for awhile. There was other drama that passed through there during the capitalization fight, and I am concerned about those people coming back. They have no clue what they are doing and I am so beaten down and raw-feeling that I really just feel like quitting altogether. I'm tired of people who never contribute content coming in and trashing good articles. Montanabw(talk) 02:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @Montanabw: - don't forget, there are lots of other horse articles in need of a loving touch! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I know! I've been here 8 years and probably 90% of my 65K edits and 4000 article watchlist are horse articles... I think I've watchlisted almost every article tagged for WPEQ. And we have plenty of non-project members more than willing to generate drahmahz on our flagship articles (see Talk:Appaloosa for the latest) and a lot of The Little Red Hen situations when it comes to actual work. I get rather grumpy about that... (hrumphing off...) But it's "teh wiki" for ya. This one got under my hide more than usual. Montanabw(talk) 06:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters[edit]

The IP came back and vandalized the article repeatedly because he was trying to get my goat, knowing very well that the arbitration committee is proposing a 1RR restriction on me, which means that guys like this will be harassing me by gaming me into violating that restriction as I am the only one who fully acknowledges the disruption and bad faith edits that they are performing to literally spite me. Could you please place this page and its related articles under semi-protected status? Because these messages he has left has proven that he will refuse to stop these edits in the future ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) and I know that he is not the only one who will try to abuse me through this page and at least these other ones:

I know this is a lot to ask, but people do not like me for something as simple as the difference between an L and an R in official trademarks and I doubt that people in the future will believe me when I tell them that edits to make these changes are done in bad faith to spite me. Please help me out here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryulong:, I'm really hoping you know how much I respect you as an editor here. I read somewhere you're on a list for twats to target? With that in mind, I would propose a different approach to this.
I don't want to create a barrier to all IP addresses or new accounts to edit those articles just because the odd IP is targeting it every few months - but if they're following you around, that's different. To quote the lovely gentleman/lady from yesterday:

I will freely admit that I was deliberately pushing his buttons for my amusement (which was worth it, as I never edit Wikipedia otherwise).

Go get some bigger boys to come along and help, and for the love of Christ don't touch it more than once yourself. There's reason you're dealing with ArbCom, and it almost completely involves these people poking you with a stick until you get sick of it. I get that. Please don't ask me to play whack-a-mole barring potential good-faith editors because idiots have tainted them. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Panyd, these TV shows have been over for several years now, so it's not like there's going to be a rush to make sure all these pages are updated with new information. I'm not even sure if there were any edits to these pages that were constructive in over a year. One page got vandalized in December in a completely different manner.
And the thing is I don't know if those projects can help because of the esoteric nature of the shows themselves and the incredibly minuscule nature of the vandalism and trolling against me (all literally changing L to R). I just don't want to have to deal with the same editor as yesterday when his block expires and he has literally proclaimed he will be doing the same vandalism/bad faith edits again. And I really don't know if that counts as vandalism in the first place so I might be getting into deeper shit the more I hit revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion then, is to go make noises over at those projects and get a consensus going on the overarching issue regarding language, rather than individual edits. Then, there will be a consensus, which the IP addresses are more than welcome to take part in - but any deliberate editing against consensus without adequate discussion becomes automatically disruptive. Especially in light of their stated mission to not actually edit Wikipedia for any other reason than to harass a single editor. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now it is quite obvious that someone is getting their fun out of harassing me because of my reversion of their joke. This is getting out of hand. I just want semi-protections in place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong - please at least try what I've asked, and if there are more individual users or IPs harassing you, let me know. They can be dealt with as is appropriate. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The latest guy is hopping IPs though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ryulong: - I have protected the article as named above. If I see another example of you engaging in that level of behaviour without asking for outside assistance I will warn you. That's not ok. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits are arguably vandalism as they were performed in bad faith to spite me rather than to constructively contribute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably but not definitively without discussion. Almost certainly done to spite you, and the IP has been blocked. I think that's appropriate. Like I said, I'm more than happy to protect articles under edit disputes, I'm more than happy to assist with people who are editing just to make your life hell - that doesn't give you a free pass to get in an edit war. Reaching out to other editors who can help you is the best course of action for your sake and the article's. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the edits happened, I did reach out to several locations. I posted on AIV. I tried to communicate with the IP editor. I then reached out through IRC to speak to Mike V who ultimately blocked the IP after I showed him the spiteful changes. And I've made threads at WT:TV and WT:JAPAN now to cover this and other issues. Although not the one at the character list because he's tried to go to WT:NOR to circumvent actual discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Appears to have worked in this case. Next time, please stop. What you did worked. Cover your butt and do the same without breaking 3RR (even if it is arguably vandalism). I'm here for you, and so are all those other resources you used! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe he's actually admitted he's trolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent them a note. The text of the edit is something I think it's reasonable to address - an admission of pushing your buttons is not. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is contesting your whatever and Robert McClenon closed off the talk section while I was editing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided this appeal as well. I don't know if you think it will be useful for you to comment there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be rather drunk in a little while, but tomorrow I'll have a look at it. Very good idea. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck it. I'm done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters vs. Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger: The Movie is affected too. Still done though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having second thoughts on being done. Also this happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have to ask[edit]

Ok, I have to ask, what dose "The muffin is not subtle" mean?--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote is: "The muffin is not subtle, nor is it tasty, but it is all powerful! All hail the muffin!" - it's from The Fairly OddParents where Timmy gets a magic muffin that grants him any wish he wants. It's bright pink with sparkles. A pink muffin with sparkles on will always win my heart. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOLOLO....I should have know that, my 8 year old used to watch Fairly OddParents religiously.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad[edit]

Full protection of this article is not needed. It was one editor doing the inserting and he's stopped and been warned. Will you reconsider please? --NeilN talk to me 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @NeilN:, I should've been clearer in the edit summary. I looked at the last week, and it's just 'revert, revert, revert, revert, revert'. Editors apparently having trouble with consensus. I think a short full protection would stop that and allow users to discuss their issues, rather than having an edit summary based 'war'. Does that make sense? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense but I don't really agree. If you look closely, most of the reverts are removing trolling (the South Park pic). There is some discussion about the lead picture but all serious editors are calmly using the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it down to a week to deal with other content issues. I can see lots of people are discussing the image calmly, and the editor has been warned about the image. Hopefully that will do it. I really don't want to remove it though - too much contentious traffic, even if it is being discussed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good call. At the same time, however, you converted the indefinite move protection to one week. That could have undesirable consequences. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe you're right. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Museum of Death[edit]

Allen3 talk 00:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

hi girl! You are agnostic atheist. What does this mean? I wrote the article, but I can not understand it. Does this mean that you think that there might be a GOD or not, but you do not care and do not want to investigate about it? This is my question.

However, obviously GOD exists. There is always a creator, who created me, you, your cat, your husband and etc. After our death, what do you think will there be. NOTHING? That is unacceptable. The entire life is an exam. Therefore, think about it, and BELIEVE in a God. I am just inviting you, not insulting. I hope that you answer my question, and I hope that GOD gives you a beautiful life with your husband. Take care, AND SEE YOU! --217.42.217.181 (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Trainor protection[edit]

Hey there, you fully protected Meghan Trainor for a month due to edit warring on January 18th. Each of the editors that were edit warring were blocked four days later for 48 hours each, each served out their entire block and so far there haven't been issues again on the Trainor related articles with the editors since. I've noticed a lot of edit requests on the Trainor talk page lately, and was wondering if you believed the protection was okay to be lifted yet? If you think it should be kept on for the full month I wouldn't blame you, but I think it has served its purpose. Gloss 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep looking at this for the next two days. There still seem to be points of contention on the Talk page and I worry that they'll stop talking about it constructively once protection is lifted. If it's still relatively quiet on the western front, I'll change it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! Gloss 19:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gloss: - I've changed it to semi, but to still expire on February 18th. Hopefully it'll be fine. If it isn't, I'll unfortunately move it back up to full protection again. Good luck! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living for Love[edit]

Why did you fully protect the article for IP cruft? And what edit warring are you talking about? I'm seriously at a loss to understand your action and request you to drop it to semi-protection. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because since the beginning of January there have been many accounts who have popped up, who are autoconfirmed, and who are adding things that are contentious. Some have been blocked, but others have not. We've got User:Jjavier1978, User:Bjornamerus, User:Trevorhaag, User:RebelHeart23, User:Fewelisan and User:Smilerslove, who is a well established editor, but even then was involved in a disagreement at the beginning of January. Some have been warned, some have been warned regarding different article, some were blocked but now aren't. Not all have been warned appropriately to the level where they could be blocked. Some of them might not have done anything that would warrant a block, but there are still disagreements over their contributions. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For this reason you would simply fully-protect it? You know very well that once or twice adding wrong content is fine and that is being monitored closely and reverted. The main issue was with IP users adding factually inaccurate content and untrue chart peaks. That is why semi-protection was requested. And you gave the reason as WP:EW which it was not, and never was. I truly believe you have got an incorrect assessment of the scenario and suggest you drop the prot to semi-prot. The article is under content expansion due to a release happening, so semi-prot should stop the fancruft from IPs, but content expansion can continue. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I'm sorry at the RFP page, didn't mean to imply you were careless, rather you had an incorrect understanding of the situation. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it down to one week, but I'm not comfortable going down to semi as this has been tried recently and it was not successful in removing all contention (there were reverts against User:Ellis.o22 (established editor, summary 'false peak edition'), User:Jjavier1978 and User:Moviefan57. In the 150 edits between the 13th January and now, before semi-protection it was:
Some were blocked. Some haven't been. After the semi protection was lifted, it's been User:Moviefan57 and User:Bjornamerus making multiple edits that have been reverted. These users need to be dealt with, preferably with civil conversation and consensus, as even with semi-protection they were still adding content that other people found contentious. Previous protection and reverts (and blocks) have dissuaded other autoconfirmed users, but I feel this way editors can definitely settle their issues with these users, and any others who have been repeatedly putting in content others don't find constructive or appropriate. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Panyd, my surprise here is that have you never come across music related wiki articles? There is a high amount of volatile users adding unsourced content, and they are reverted all across. Sometimes they add content which are not adhering to sources, sometimes simply false info. That is NOT what is edit warring. And these users you listed, they don't even show a long term pattern of vandalism that you would simply protect it. They add unsourced content, simple as that and they are reverted. Having civil conversations with them? Nope, a case of WP:NOTHERE. I am pinging @Kww: who regularly monitors music related articles for his input. I still feel you are overreacting for trivial IP issues and request you to drop it to semi, to allow article expansion. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are very much correct. This is definitely not my area. I will defer to @Kww: and their judgement. If they could please let me know their decision and reasoning I would very much appreciate it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to learn. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also pinging @Acalamari: and @SNUGGUMS: for their input. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 18:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it should've been semi-protected rather than fully protected. Fancruft is not worthy of full protection. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That article is pretty much typical of an article about a recent single by an established popstar, and I wouldn't go beyond semi-protection for it. It does, however, illustrate the reason why I don't think we should have articles about singles, but I lost that battle eight years ago. It's also the reason why people tend to see me as block-happy: I do tend to block users long before I would take an article to full-protection, just because what I have learned is that users that don't gain a clue quickly never gain it at all.—Kww(talk) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I would never have thought that. I'll keep that in mind next time I come across a single/album article. Thank you Kww (and thank you @IndianBio: for the ping). I'm am the least block-happy administrator you are ever likely to meet, so I usually beg people to talk things through when it's autoconfirmed users over a period of time. Very much noted. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, sad, sad...[edit]

Hi there PANYD, this is (formerly known as) user AlwaysLearning here,

regarding this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:191.95.252.229), really am at a loss as to what to do, three years ago, after a dispute of contents in said article (Quique Flores, in which several users told him the same, not just me, we told him that "Quique Flores" was enough as article name in this WP), this Colombian punk started insulting/harassing only me ("fagot" (there is a filter here that does not allow me to write the word properly), "crybaby", "Portuguese idiot", destroying my userpage again and again). Now, after a period of inactivity, he returns to both paths, changing the article name (at least in the infobox) and insulting me.

I am getting as tired as can be, sincerely. Any suggestions besides "hang in there, he's just a troll" or "retire if you can't take the heat")? Cheers, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also sent a to-the-point message to the last IP, just informing you. I am seething with this persecution, but my note did not contain any foul language or akin (I can provide a translation if you require it, but I believe your Spanish is OK, since you understood what the punk called me in his summary), nor did I tell him to "go find a girlfriend"! Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, I also have to say I am no wiki-saint, and after months or harassment three years ago I responded with foul language. I was duly warned to stop, and did just that. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to bed but could you please speak English on talk pages? I can always bring in a Spanish speaker if you need one to talk properly about these things, but as it stands, most of us understand either no Spanish or are really rubbish at it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the use of a wrong language in this WP, but I have the feeling the IP speaks no English or very little, and I wanted to get my message across with no room for misunderstandings (not that he'll heed, tried that in the past). Sorry for any inconvenience, wish you a good night sleep.

P.S. Ah, but turns out, like I mentioned in said message, i'll never again write another word to that person, not unless he changes his behaviour towards me, so no one has to worry about me using Spanish (or any other language) in his page. I'm only looking for valid options to stop this, have no intention of interacting with this person having seen his "respect" for me. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • More helping out: the translation of my message to the IP is "Look, I will only tell you this, to refresh your memory: 1 - THREE YEARS ago, several users told you "Quique Flores is enough as article name in the English WP, no need for the extra "Sánchez"". Is there something you don't understand in this sentence? And the insults (now smoother, you "only" tell me "tiresome" or "go look for a girlfriend", so nice of you), ONLY directed at me when so many people told you otherwise in Flores' article?! Don't you understand it is you who are being the tiresome, and not me? The article is called QUIQUE FLORES, not QUIQUE SÁNCHEZ FLORES.

I can only say: "Thanks", very "kind", also very "brave" for the insults thousands of miles away instead of to my face. I am not going to stoop down to that level, you do what you have to do and I will do the same, and not one more word from me towards yourself, good or bad. Ah, and you have already been reverted by a user other than myself in Mr. Flores' article, will you be able to acknowledge YOU are doing things wrong, and not ME?" (end of translation)

I also thank you, Panyd, for the offer of bringing an extra set of (Spanish-speaking)eyes, much appreciated, and sorry if, now that you have seen the full translation, I stepped out of line with the IP, not my intention, but I'm feeling really tired and frustrated with this whole ordeal; chances are he'll never even read this message, with all those IPs he now seems to have. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me more of the backstory @84.90.219.128:. I can't see a user called AlwaysLearning to look at your history - but this is a person who has been blocked previously for using sockpuppets. I've blocked the last two IP accounts they have used but unfortunately there's absolutely nothing we can do about it other than play Whack-a-Mole, and then protect the page if they keep it up. If we protect the page, you will not be able to edit it either. The most you can do is message me or ask for page protection when they make disruptive edits. I'm sorry that there isn't a more effective method to stop this. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, both your assistance here and your kindness. My account was vanished at my request, as after a serious run-in with a troll (another troll!) who wanted to vandalize articles at will after he felt his sports team had been "robbed" in the 2014 UEFA Europa League Final I had the intention of leaving forever (more details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107, notice how below, after the person is blocked, a user offers him his undying support, guess what, user Panhead was also blocked after a different run-in with me and others, I seem to draw them like flies :(). Guess I can't leave, I'm wiki-hooked.

All the best again, until some other interaction here --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chris Apps for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Apps is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Apps until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic and Latino[edit]

This article is full of Original research, one particular individual (spread of knowledge) continues to take down well sourced material that is being put to balance this article. From my understanding of Wikipedia we are not supposed to remove well sourced material which is what this person is doing. He is also putting up material based on his opinions and not citing sources. Also if you look at the history page, you will see his remarks which are filled with profanity and uncivil speech. He has been warned in other articles but continues. Please look read my remarks on the bottom of the Hispanic and Latino article at the bottom of the talk page and leave me your feedback.....Thanks much....Tierraman (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About that waterpark article[edit]

(I'm being deliberately vague, just in case.) Is there anything I should know about before I history-merge with the two drafts and (likely) send the mainspace version to afd? Your restoration summary doesn't give me anything to go on. I'll readily admit that G11 was pushing things a bit, taken in isolation; but I felt it justified given that substantially the same article had been formally declined at AFC five times by five different editors, and informally commented negatively on by two more. I've already gotten a very broad outline of the situation onwiki from another OTRS member; see my contribs for where. —Cryptic 02:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately don't have email enabled - mostly, as alluded to at the top of my user talk page, because I used to work for a free email provider and I know just how thoroughly evil they were; but also in part because I don't like my onwiki actions being influenced by offwiki discussion. If that means I get left partially or wholly in the dark sometimes, that's ok, I understand and accept that, and don't hold it against anyone. In this case, I just need to know whether there's an overriding reason to keep the drafts separate and the article off afd for a while, not what the reason actually is. It's already been in mainspace a while, so there's no urgent need to deal with it right away if leaving things at the status quo for a month or so makes your life easier. —Cryptic 19:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who asked for asked for the restoration of the article, as I was trying to figure out more behind the person who started that and impersonated an administrator. I have no problem with you merging them as they are the same text as far as I am concerned, and we can deal with the deletion idea later. However, having looked at the scope of their projects, with some improvement, it might be salvageable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Cryptic: - that being looked into, I'll leave it to you whether or not to delete again. I have no interest in questioning your decision there and wouldn't overstep my boundaries by presuming to override you. Thanks for being patient. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive piping[edit]

I'm collecting here some articles on competitive piping - solo and band - that need created or have been recently created and need expansion. I saw you created Bratach Gorm, so thought you might be interested. Best, Ostrichyearning (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to look into them later but must admit that I've taken your insinuation that a piping article I wrote was an advertisement rather personally. I've done a lot of work on Gordon Duncan, and if you want to help out with that one, I'd put it on the top of the list. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, that was an extreme error of judgement on my part and I apologise profusely. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

email for you[edit]

Hello, Panyd. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next meetups in North England[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

refreshing spirit
Thank you for your refreshing ideas (missed when you have to be absent), such as attracting new users to contribute to DYK, and for your unrewarded activity "behind the scenes", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were the 80th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending over three years spreading joy! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your involvement in an edit war - abuse of admin rights[edit]

You are involved in an edit war and protected a page after you turned it into a version you liked.

I did some research and there was a year long consensus to have the page High-speed rail by country be the category main page for Category:High-speed rail by country.

You actually removed content from Wikipedia, since the target is only about existing railway lines.

Please revert your mess.

Railman2015 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Railman2015 - you are currently engaged in an edit war with at least two other editors who have told you that your actions are against consensus. I have absolutely no 'preference', nor do I have anything at stake regarding the issue. My involvement in this edit war is limited to protecting one of the pages in question to facilitate debate and stop constant reverts. At any time, you, or another editor, can request an edit be made, and an independent administrator will decide whether or not consensus has been reached.
The other users have asked if you would please engage them at Talk:List of high-speed rail lines, and I suggest you do so. If I have made a mistake, which is entirely possible, I don't consider that an 'abuse' of my administrative abilities. Once again, I don't 'like' any version of this. Railways aren't really my thing. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your reply. You say you have no preference, but your actions seem to indicate otherwise. You did change the page before protecting. The claims of the others are not true. The consensus was

  1. "railway line", not "rail line", compare
  2. that the main article for Category:High-speed rail by country is High-speed rail by country - it existed for several years. User:FlyAkwa raided it, a merge proposal by this user was followed by merge without any feedback. Now the user claims tacit consensus for her version, but that can be claimed for the year-old version even more.
  3. that there are different pages for different things
    • high-speed rail
    • high-speed rail - trains
    • high-speed rail - railway lines

The redirect from a "high-speed rail" general title to only the railway lines is an unexpected surprise for any visitor of that URL. Respect the readers and at least establish a disambiguation page.

See Talk:High-speed rail by country#Out-of-process misredirect.

Railman2015 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Railman2015 I absolutely, 100%, see what you're saying. From what I can tell, much earlier on, it was decided to merge the two articles. A while later, this information was de-merged. Then, another user saw what they thought to be an error and merged the information again. There doesn't appear to have been a discussion on de-merging this content.
You've linked me to your explanation on the talk page, and it's my hope that the other users will engage with you regarding this issue. If they don't, I suggest talking to them on their talk pages about this, as obviously a discussion needs to be had.
It would absolutely, 100%, be an abuse of my administrator tools to definitively declare what consensus was before a new discussion had occurred. All I have done is revert the article back to the original state as decided in the original discussion. At any time whatsoever this can be undone by an impartial administrator. You can even ask me after you've had a thorough discussion and if it's decided that the information should be on the page in question, I will be more than happy to unprotect the page and restore the article to the state you prefer. Just talk it out, and the community can do whatever is needed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"From what I can tell, much earlier on, it was decided to merge the two articles" - Where can you see that? The page existed for several years and is the main page for the namesake category. A new, misnamed list article is created. User:FlyAkwa jumps in, proposes a merge. After 31 hours the users performs the merge. No, discussion anywhere. And also, on the new target page, one finds less information, since it restricts the content to existing lines or those under construction.
You propose that I talk. I absolutely agree with talking. See Talk:High-speed rail by country#Out-of-process misredirect. Railman2015 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged the other users. Let's see what happens. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Baird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Russell. 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) 09:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre rewrite[edit]

The thread was archived - yes - very fair assessment of the article. I had invited reddit to critique the photo for forgery due to photoshop & no one came back :) -- IamM1rv (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If reddit figure out how that artifact came into the photograph that would be awesome! 17:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for DYK[edit]

I noticed your excellent work on DYK, thank you! (Such as promoting an image that had been rejected before ;) ) - May I point out that some "women" are still waiting for promotion which were intended to appear in women's history month, at the bottom of this list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for passing the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. I'm not sure what to do about the women's history month noms. I've look at a few and I've actually been pinging people to look at the reviews or go back and address issues with their nominations. I'm a bit lost as to what else I can do but I'd be more than happy to help. (And that was a very pretty picture) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The women: there are seven approved but not yet promoted, with a question mark but empty in the date column. - The pretty picture was already suggested for the church but not taken, - and in context with the text now much more appropriate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you Panyd, for your efforts in arranging the DYK on this special date. The Armenian DYK articles look fantastic alongside the FL and FP sections :) I worked two years to have that arranged...believe it!! Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nominations/Captive (2015 film)[edit]

Hello Panyd! Will you please undo your rejection edit on Template:Did you know nominations/Captive (2015 film)? I was really busy in my real life for last couple of weeks, as you can see yourself in my contributions. Please undo the edit and I'll address the issues today. I'll appreciate it, thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've undone the edit. I hope you understand why I've been closing these. They've been getting very old and we have been pinging. Glad you're back. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I understand, but I was away you know? Thank you for understanding my situation too. Will you please undo your rejection edits from Template:Did you know nominations/Jungle Book: Origins, Template:Did you know nominations/Arms and the Dudes, and Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Green (director), Template:Did you know nominations/Manchester-by-the-Sea (film)? I'll address to all within one day. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It'll be done today. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special request[edit]

Hi, if you happen to be building prep sets for Preps 3, 4, or 5, would you mind promoting Template:Did you know nominations/A.D. Roy and Template:Did you know nominations/Steeve Briois, per the special request notice on WT:DYK? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends (Series 19)[edit]

I have proof of most of the information via Emails and Trailers for the Series. --ACase0000 (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then stick it in! That'll be wonderful and then we can get it sorted out. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the trailers and my emails? --ACase0000 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately emails aren't acceptable but I would presume the trailers were public. Without verification there's no way to be certain which edits are correct so the more you can provide the better. No editor can take it on another's 'say-so' which leaves you and the IP editors at an impass. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the trailer and link for the Season. Would that be allowed?
I can't believe I just watched a Thomas the Tank Engine trailer...but the parts about who is starring and the director etc. is exactly what it needs! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thanks!! --ACase0000 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me close a debate[edit]

I've seen your judgment in analyzing debates is excellent, I was wondering if you could close an RfC for me, no administrator has touched this because nearly everyone is involved and has been opened for two weeks. I was wondering if you could close a debate for me it is long though. Valoem talk contrib 15:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for the compliment but I'll not make any promises. Could you let me know what it is please and I'll take a look and see if I can? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy, it has been posted at RfC closure requests for nearly two weeks. For or against is fine, I was hoping for a detailed explanation either way, this last close was NAC and I feel he failed to address many issues. Valoem talk contrib 15:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NAC reverted back, so I'll put in my two cents, WP:MEDRS, has been deemed incorrect policy to apply, if you choose not to participate, could you revert his close and request another admin either way works I am simply requesting admin close. Valoem talk contrib 15:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Valoem is the initiator and primary proponent of restoration of the content in question, and is also edit-warring to contest the close by the aforementioned non-admin. This isn't a judgement on you Panyd, but I for one feel a bit uncomfortable with the RfC author going around and attempting to hand-pick a closer. This was posted at WP:AN already. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc there was no edit warring I am a reverting an improper NAC which I can do. He reverted it back now someone else must. It is clear to me that if this ever reaches the mainspace it will never be deleted. AN process failed as an admin did not close and NACs can always be contested. Valoem talk contrib 15:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tarc. However, from a personal perspective I think this subject warrants its own article. So I am going to write up what I think is a good solution to both your problems and the objections raised by others. I do not feel comfortable undoing another user's close of an RfC - especially one where so much discussion has been ongoing. Very sad to see some users with political agendas arguing for its inclusion. I hope this is something you'll find helpful. If you would rather I not do that for you, please let me know and I'll get back to attempting to fill DYK prep areas....god help us all. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the best solution in restore and relist to mainspace as involuntary sexual abstinence and then AfD, and see if it passes. I think this is a good way, but would love to hear any other ideas. Valoem talk contrib 15:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to hear @Tarc:'s thoughts on this, but these are my thoughts. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Sox game to get to, will check in in a bit. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, wasn't to lucky to go in person, just a local sports bar. :) Tarc (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways...the actual objection that many have had to this subject is that it is a fringe and non-notable neologism, that a smattering of blogs and non-medical publications have attempted to make a thing out of "love shyness" or "incel" as they like to call it. Wanting to have sex but not being able to is the plot line to every teen comedy film the last 30 years; a few fringe doctors calling it a standalone thing doesn't make it so. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really my thing, so I'm not going to take it further than that screed. I just found sociologists discussing it seriously since the 1940s. Seemed the article didn't really have those scholars in mind and it seemed a shame. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned in the RfC tough that IF there is some substance to it, i.e. legit sources and professional medical journals and whatnot that there may be a possibility of an article...I think someone suggested sexual frustration as a target to expand, but without the love shyness baggage. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the ones I've got are all about how involuntary celibacy has either been forced on groups or used systemically in institutions/cultures/etc within the larger context of population control, slavery, class 'warfare' for want of a better word, etc. etc. etc. Very removed from both propositions. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was away for Mother's day, but wow, Panyd amazing response if an admin closure the way you did I would be happy whatever the outcome. I believe contentious closes require a detailed explanation which was provided here. If I am correct you have also notice the long term coverage this subject has received. There are definitely improvements and expansions which this article needs there is no other way then for mainspace where a multitude of editors can participate. I am probably going to DRV this, but if this fails I want the arb com involved what is the best method in your opinion? Valoem talk contrib 18:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom doesn't get involved with editorial disputes, they only adjudicate matters of behavior, rule/policy violations, and the like. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, but this subject highlights many issues which I know you are aware. It is clear I am here to build this encyclopedia, what is going on is the fact that once an article is delete it cannot be restored without overwhelming consensus, a consensus more uniform than what is required at AfD. This is a flaw in how things are handled. This is not a neologism and has been subject to extensive long term coverage. I understand that you are my biggest opponent in this article's restoration, but it doesn't have to be this way I would be more than happy to work with you. I feel uncomfortable editing an encyclopedia which a small vocal group can override our GNG policy. I am not saying you are doing this, but it appears that everyone involved including yourself does not have an issue with restoring under a different name. The closing non admin was unaware of this consensus. The version in my space which is actually written by administrator Tokyogirl79, has never been subject to AfD. If this fails AfD then I will drop the stick, but my argument is that we should at least be allow to try, otherwise our mutual goal to created an organic encyclopedia has failed. Valoem talk contrib 20:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, I disagree with any merge, I would rather it be kept or deleted. As I've stated in the AfD, sources provided clearly suggest that sexual frustration and incel are completely different. One can be sexual activate and still frustrated if say partner is not to the others standards or orientation perhaps. Both cases do not apply to this concept. Valoem talk contrib 20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, this AfD and RfC have been closed. It is time to start anew. There are the bare bones of an article available, and I sincerely believe it can be made into a workable one. However, there is no way that ArbCom will take up the matter, and I don't think they need to. There is nothing stopping interested editors from collaborating on an article in use space, and if you'd like to work with others I highly recommend giving them a ping so you can work together before putting it forward again. The onus will be on any editor to prove the subject both has merit and differs significantly from the versions the community has already reached consensus over. And I cannot stress that enough - reached consensus. The benefits of working together with other editors in your userspace include having the time to perfect an article, which would allow you more time to get it together with collaboration than any move to main space could provide.

I don't see any evidence that anyone has abandoned good faith, with the exception of a few editors on the last AfD who appeared to think the article's deletion was politically motivated. I don't want this discussion hashed out again on my Talk Page, and I urge you to work on the article - then ask an administrator if it can be moved to main space as a new article. There is no 'red line', nothing is 'final'. We are an online encyclopedia - it's fluid. Improve the article, collaborate, and I'm sure we'll all be the better for it. There's no rush. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead images[edit]

Hi, I really appreciate your dedication to prep-set building, but I'm wondering why you load the images into several prep sets in advance? We all know to vary the images from people to buildings to nature to graphics. Having the images already chosen takes away a little of the fun after the hour or so it takes to put together an 8-hook prep set. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I find building preps like maintaining a zen garden and so it's similar to getting all the neat little ducks lined up so we can all make it pretty. Taking away other people's fun is something I've been accused of on more than one occasion though. Thank you for telling me, I'll try and hold back. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:) Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Panyd/Archive_14&oldid=1075725736"