|Archives for the Panyd talk page|
|1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
- 1 DYK request
- 2 Pearlin Jean
- 3 File:John R Rickards.jpg missing description details
- 4 DYK for Pearlin Jean
- 5 Granvilleautomatic
- 6 The muffin is not subtle
- 7 Spongebro thing
- 8 July 2013
- 9 Talkback
- 10 Heads up
- 11 RE:
- 12 Restoration1
- 13 Kirwani
- 14 OTRS
- 15 Nomination of Midlands Ghost Research Society for deletion
- 16 Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Panyd, may I make a request? Can you please hold off selecting pictures for upcoming prep sets until you're ready to start filling them? One of the fun parts of building sets is to select that lead, pictured hook, and you've currently got the last three leads locked up while still working on filling the first set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't work on sets, I work on entries. Those four pictures are varied, and passed, and need putting up. Same with the hooks. For example, I'll put up 3 sports ones, but I'll put them in three prep areas so there's only one sports entry in each prep area.
- My main aim is to make the nominations page less cluttered. And putting up entries as fast as is reasonable allows a wider audience to review them for a third time.
- Does that perspective make sense? I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds putting it together like a mechanic fun. But I also think it's practical.
- I remembered what you said last time about me doing all of the preps, so unless every queue ever is empty, I make a point of not hanging about all the time. I thought that was a good compromise? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- As an outsider simply lurking, I also think it is not so good to be pre-populating the prep areas with picture hooks alone. I think they should be considered as part of each set as a whole. However, I do agree that to spread three sports articles into three different areas is a worthwhile thing to do. So far as I know, though I am not going to get involved in this sort of thing myself, there is no reason why someone shouldn't displace a picture hook previously placed in a prep area if they think it would improve matters. It might seem rather pushy but frankly pre-empting the first hooks seems rather pushy too. Anyway, to both of you and everyone else involved, thank you for keeping the DYK show on the road. I often look there to see what is happening and yesterday on my first attempt at a review I stumbled on a terrific article! Thincat (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for BlueMoonset on this, but to me images work just like hooks. You wont put 2 people images in a row, even if there are two passed entries one after the other. I don't see it as any different from any other hook, except for the fact that there are colours involved. But like I said above, I'm just looking to see if we're ok with that being a compromise. I guess I'm just upset at the idea that I have to never put anything together in my own way, and I don't know if this is representative of a general feeling (obliviousness is a forte). It's not something to stamp your feet and wail about, but given that it's not breaking any rules and that I'm not hanging about all the time, it is a little upsetting. I would not want to be pushy by any means. I just want to have fun, just like the people who fill a complete prep area, in one go, by themselves want to have fun!
- Anyway, BlueMoonset, take it away! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with BlueMoonset on this issue. While it may not be your intention, filling the image slots of all free prep areas comes across as marking your territory. It also defeats your stated goal of "putting up entries as fast as is reasonable allows a wider audience to review them for a third time" by discouraging others from using those same prep areas. Potential promoters are instead waiting for you to come back and finish the job you started. Besides, you move more entries by promoting a complete set of 6-8 hooks into a single prep area instead of filling only 4 image slots. As to only working on entries, you should realize that this is a minority point of view. This is because DYK needs complete sets, and not randomly selected entries, for the queues. The prep area(s) were even created for the purpose of allowing non-admins the opportunity to build complete sets ready to be promoted to the Main page (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 15#Radical (may be not) proposal for getting more DYK updaters). --Allen3 talk 14:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- 'You should realise' is definitely not something that applies over here, with regards to almost anything. Honestly, I think filling an entire prep-queue at once by yourself is marking your territory (god, has it come to this? we're not 12) on a massive scale. We are working on a collaborative encyclopedia ... collaborative. The idea that someone should wait for me to return to finish the prep area is ridiculous, and if that's the overriding feeling that other people have we should be actively discouraging it, because it's simply not true.
- They're not random entries. They're carefully curated to ensure they're the best set. One sports, one biography, one war (assuming it's not a biography), one arts etc. I don't just throw things at the wall and hope it sticks.
- I love DYK. I find putting entries in prep areas to be a very zen process. I hate this. Every time. If the DYK community would open their hearts a little bit, assume good faith and actually think about what the other person is doing, then the DYK quagmire would probably not be as bad as it is.
- The prep areas and the queues are empty a shameful amount of times. I speculate whether or not this is because people feel they have to wait for someone to fill an entire queue on their own before anything can get done (and that is this-conversation conjecture, could it be?). I try and help.
- Help! You hear me! I try and make things better and collaborate with people! Like someone who isn't a dick!
- Sigh - I haven't been this upset on Wikipedia since people thought I didn't exist. AGF people. Assume I have a brain. Please. There's no such thing as territory on this encyclopedia. Don't accuse anyone else of that rubbish. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I was so long in getting back. I certainly meant to assume good faith: what I was hoping to do was point out the other perspective from your colleagues who also like to build sets, and what they like to do. I don't think of it in terms of territory, and certainly didn't mean to upset anyone. We all have different approaches to how we like to build sets, and how we view the process. My point in starting this thread is that the picture hooks are special: locking up all four at once discourages other people from building sets (it took quite a long while for the other three sets to get filled). I'm one who likes to build an entire set, and tries to curate them with care, though I will fill in missing hooks if a set is half done—or missing one or two to be complete—before I go on to building one of my own. But it's discouraging when someone has filled in all the lead slots: I'm not free to choose an image I think is good because someone else has decided for me, whether I happen to like that image or not. (And, sometimes, I don't, or sometimes it's a good image but there's one I think would have been even better.) It's easier to work around a non-lead hook such as those three sports hooks spread across three prep sets, because I feel I have the freedom to move it up or down a slot or two so I can fit it in with the other hooks I'm assembling.
- The prep set is a useful unit. Until a set is full, it can't be promoted, so there's been a certain amount of training to at least get a good start on filling a set, so it's that much closer to being ready. This is especially true during lean times, of which there have been many, when the queues are nearly empty and only a couple of prep sets were getting done at any one time: the goal was to try to finish off prep sets if at all possible. I'm not a fan of promoting prep to queue so quickly: like you, I think it's good to have time for the non-admin community to fix things up before they go to the queue and are only available to a small group of admin regulars.
- There's courtesy involved when many people are involved in this kind of process, and could be working at the same time you are. I happen to think it's courteous, if someone has started building a set, to hold back and see whether they are going to finish before making any insertions of my own. There's nothing more frustrating than running into an edit conflict because someone else has decided to add (or correct) at the same time you're adding: it's why I've taken to employing the "Inuse" template, but not everyone does this, so I'll hold back because I've been on the wrong end of too many edit conflicts and know how it feels. (There's also the practical issue of having two people, preparing separate sets, trying to promote the same hook at about the same time. I'm extra careful when I find I'm in that situation.)
- It seems to me that the nominations page (T:TDYK) is going to be cluttered regardless. It's nice to promote the ones from the oldest dates first, if they otherwise fit, because it works to reduce the number of active dates still being used. I also try to use hooks that were approved the longest ago, because it's not fair to the nominators to have to wait a week and more for the hooks to be promoted post-approval. But when juggling all the other variables, it sometimes isn't possible. Incidentally, I wanted to point out one thing about your examples above: neither bios nor U.S. hooks are subject to the one-only-per-set limit (two if exceptional circumstances): given the numbers of hook submissions, the limits on both are no more than half of the set. So in a seven-hook set like we have now, there can be as many as three bios and three U.S. hooks—a U.S. bio would count toward both limits. Given the number of bios and U.S. hooks, limiting to one of each isn't practical, as we'd end up with an overabundance. There was a period where we were regularly allowing two sports hooks, too, due to oversupply. (And don't get me started about the Olympics!) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Panyd, I've just done the review of you DYK nomination for Pearlin Jean - what a fascinating little article! When I was doing the review I found that the first two books you have used as references are actually available online, hence me not having to use the AGF tick. I didn't like to just go in and amend the refs to include the online version as the page numbers appear to be the same for the Henderson book but at a quick glance not for the Lang reference. Maybe you would like to have a look yourself? They are here  and here . Sorry, I don't mean to be cheeky and hope this doesn't read that way, it's always so difficult to try and convey the right message when just typing into a computer! Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
File:John R Rickards.jpg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Pearlin Jean
|On 22 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pearlin Jean, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Pearlin Jean purportedly haunted her former lover's estate after he tried to buy her silence with the lace of the same name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pearlin Jean. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
I just unblocked them to allow a username change. I defer to your administrative judgement on the original block, but speaking for myself I wouldn't have blocked it on sight, not without any edits to suggest whether or not they intended to edit promotionally (people do pick names that sound corporate or whatever not because they're editing on those entities' behalf but, sometimes, because they want to make ironic or playful use of them). Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The muffin is not subtle
My local shipping mall is full of posters of a woman wearing nothing but panty hose and holding a muffin, with the slogan: "This muffin is going down". (Only women understand what this is about.) Whenever I see it I am reminded of your signature, and vice versa. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I swear this place gets weirder every day. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
But that information about SpongeBro DrinkerPants is real. They're also making a kids version of the Simpsons called Simpsons Kids which is gonna air on an upcoming Fox Kids channel in April next year when the channel launches. StarfishWalkofFame (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. Well, I don't believe you. But if you prove it then more power to you! You can lock and load. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Your addition to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Channels Design has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was referring to two editors, not one. The discussion at this point was getting heated and must be seen in context. I believe one new editor to the page, SoftLavender was being intimidated and has since left the discussion. Since the subject of the article, Zane Stein is also contributing to the talk page, I felt that some of the comments were unnecessarily insulting to him such as (incorrectly) describing his book sales as 'abysmal' and later describing his colleagues as 'clowns'. . As I responded to IRWolfie at the time, I will try to keep on topic. Kooky2 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That was a long time ago I made that. It's before I knew all of the evidence and stuff that Trayvon was a delinquent. I'm proud George was acquitted, and I'd like that template to be deleted, since it doesn't represent any of my opinions. Thank you. I had thought of that template a few weeks ago, and your message caused me to respond right back. Atum World There's an Acadia for that too! 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm pretty sure I'm the one who deleted it already. Given the content of the userbox it seemed like a good idea to let you know how to help if you still felt justice had not been done during the trial. It's all gone now though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm having trouble moving my sandbox to a live article on Wikipedia. My article is on Restoration1 and I know you've said "I don't think this one is beyond saving." Restoration1 is a huge franchise on the East Coast.
Here is a link to my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StaceyWriter/sandbox
You had deleted Kirwani on 17th November, 2012. Can you please give me the content so that I can work on it again to make it proper with references? Please restore the content to User:VasuVR/Kirwani. Thanks.
Hi Panyd. I am an OTRS agent, but I took a break in June, intended to be short, but turned out to be longer. In the meantime, there's new software, and I've managed to forget some stuff, so apologies if this sounds like a newbie question.
There is an FA review of an article, using File:Gordon Highlander steam locomotive.jpg this image. There is no OTRS ticket on the image, so I was asked to look into it.
I see the permission statement at, but you closed that with the notation "Already been done".
- Never mind, I figured it out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Old School! - Yeah, I can see why you wanted to stick the tag on. I should have done that. Nice to see where images end up! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a nice image. I think what happened is that it was in the photosubmissions queue. I work that queue on and off. In this case, the task seems like uploading the image, and when you saw the image was there, good news, done. Just a guess, and not important to figure it out, I just got nervous, and didn't want to just slap a tag on if there was some reason not to. They did remove it from the article, but put it back, and it looks like a fine article. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Old School! - Yeah, I can see why you wanted to stick the tag on. I should have done that. Nice to see where images end up! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Midlands Ghost Research Society for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midlands Ghost Research Society 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/Midlands Ghost Research Society 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. jps (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)