User talk:Peyna

Archive 1 - 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Archive 2 - 18:13, 02 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive 3 - 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will generally respond to your comments on this page unless you specifically request otherwise.

Welcome

Please leave a message at the bottom of this page and I'll be happy to respond here or at your user page. Everything written here will eventually be archived, but never deleted or modified (except for error correction). Peyna 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri article

Thank you for your help suppressing the POV edits; not enough people even try. :D --Doyel 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it; some people don't realize that POV can be something very innocuous in appearance. POV isn't limited to controversial topics. Peyna 21:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah brewer

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'll remember to check empty pages' histories in the future (or try to, anyway :) ), when speedy tagging them. Nothing wrong with getting it right. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't mean to be a nit-picker; but I've often tagged pages for speedy without bothering to look at the history and made much more egregious errors than yours. Peyna 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not nitpicking, it was a helpful comment (I've already put it to use on one article). Thanks again. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Image Link

Dear Payna: I created this cat and put it where it is. I really don't mind you moving it. I'll say so if the tempest keeps brewing. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category is a great idea; but usually the top of the article is reserved for disambig stuff; the image thing, while impressive and useful, probably doesn't need to be up there. I've done all that I'll do with it, but thanks. Peyna 13:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Supreme Court wikiproject

Glad to see you joined up. Let me know if I can do anything for you or just leave a message on the projects talk page. Cheers!--Kchase T 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation on Martin Luther Page

Penya, just a friendly note to warn you that you have violated WP:3RR on the Martin Luther page. Please be careful going forward. There is a very low tolerance for 3RR on Wikipedia. You made reversions on the page five times in the past twenty-four hours. I would advise you to self-revert to avoid getting a block. Bailan 21:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're counting incorrectly, or didn't bother to actually check the edits I made. I made a change, it was reverted, I put it back, it was reverted, I put it back, it was reverted. That means I made two reversions. I made other, unrelated edits, for a total of five revisions. Other people may have made the same or similar reversion that I did, but that has no bearing on me. Peyna 21:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note discussion on the 3RR page.--Mantanmoreland 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not sure to what discussion you are referring. Peyna 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one[1] but as you know this whole thing is moot, since Bailan is the sockpuppet of banned user Ptmccain.--Mantanmoreland 11:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in CJC LDS

not sure why we are so contrary on the merge issue - I'm going to remove it from my watch for a few days to see if some time away will help the concensus - and my irritation to be reduced. --Trödel 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count tool? Not sure what you mean by that. Anyway, it just seemed (from your actions), that you were in quite a hurry to finish the discussion and be done with the entire issue. I don't know your motives, if you have any, but I did find it somewhat unusual for a discussion to be so hurried along like that. Usually people will let such things run their course for several days and then finally one editor (who wasn't heatedly involved in the discussion) will take it upon themselves to implement what they see as the consensus. In this case, it seemed like that was all being short-circuited. I pretty much withdrew from the discussion yesterday, but I felt it necessary to comment on what may or may not be perceived as suppression. Peyna 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose was to get the discussion focused on somthing that could succeed - given that there was already discussion on splitting the LDS article - not sure where it belongs - hopefully there will be some discussion on what article it should go to. --Trödel 23:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a few days - I organzied the references - thought it would be a good time to work together on finding an appropriate locaiton for the info in that article - I don't like the idea of "Minor teachigns..." - so help needed :) --Trödel 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-examine this later today. Peyna 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oops

I too hope that destructive newbies can become good editors, and I specifically wanted to leave the user a message specific to the reverted edit. Actually there was an edit conflict, and I'm sorry that I didn't make my intentions more clear in the first edit. --digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year pronunciation

Remember your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year pronunciation. I have to note that the nominator of this page for deletion is an Afd vandal. Georgia guy 16:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that user's categorization as an AfD vandal, I have to say he might have gotten this one right. Plus it is duplicative of names of numbers in English. Peyna 16:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one section of it, not the full How to name numbers in English article. Georgia guy 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't need both articles. Merge and redirect. Peyna 16:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then just change your Afd vote; and don't forget to strike out your original vote. Georgia guy 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every incoming link is just a redirect, I don't see any reason to keep the article around and will stick with delete. Peyna 17:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly merge and redirect? That wasn't the result of the debate. The consensus was delete, and since the author himself requested deletion, it should have been done speedily. --Hyphen5 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author was not the only contributor; and therefore his request bears no weight. The redirect was harmless, as a merge had already been completed. We can't delete after a merge, since we need to keep the history for GFDL purposes. Peyna 20:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The"in The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod

The word "The" is capitalized in the name of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. It is part of the Synod's legal name and the Synod's style guide indicates this is so.You are a good example of why Wikipedia is a cesspool of ignorance. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Stop being stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.121.195 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but the tone of your comment means it is not even worth this response. Peyna 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth hurts. You are talking about things you know nothing about. Again, stop being stupid.