User talk:Panyd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Why did you semi-protect Austria-Hungary?[edit]

There are no recent confirmed sockpuppets at this article. This is just a lame pretext, Fakirbakir wants the article semiprotected to be able to impose his version without resistance from anonymous editors. 176.61.232.104 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I didn't say there was sockpuppetry going on. I see no immediate evidence of it, and besides, it's not my area of expertise. What I do see is an ongoing tug-of-war between IP editors and new accounts against other users with confirmed accounts. There doesn't appear to be any productive dialogue about the content on the article's talk page (though there is a complete abandonment of good faith by...everyone). For the next two weeks, the article will be restricted to only being edited by autoconfirmed users, but all IP editors and new editors can request an edit be made to the page in line with consensus. If there is sockpuppetry going on, I hope somebody takes the time to report it and handle the situation. As it stands, editors need to come to an agreement over the content and stop edit warring (I don't care who started it). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Prep 2[edit]

Hi, I put an "in use" template on this prep set as I am almost finished building it. Could you move Logan Beirne to Prep 3? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearing the prep areas[edit]

Hi. If you clear a DYK prep area (or queue), please make sure you use Template:Did you know/Clear to do so. You have reverted key changes to the DYK prep areas, that would evenlually leak through to the main page. If you copied it from somewhere else, please copy the contents of /Clear to that location as well, so the old code is eliminated. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Joel Nkaya Bendera.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Joel Nkaya Bendera.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2 I thought I'd put the thing under fair use with a rationale... PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently no copyright tag, which is different from a fair use rationale. The file information page contains some of the things required in a fair use rationale, but not everything. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I'll get on that tomorrow, but if it's easy a hand would be very welcome. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

East London meetups[edit]

Hi,I am sitting in an almost empty Waitrose Café, Canary Wharf, on a Wednesday evening. I wandered around looking for a suitable place for a meet up: Unfortunately the Starbucks outside the library shuts at 7:00 pm. I think this place would be fine - almost empty, reasonable price with free coffee if you buy something (i.e. a cake?). After all the talk on WMUK list I thought it would be better to do something. What I would suggest is perhaps an East London meetup on the last Wednesday of the month, starting wed 24 June. What do you think? Leutha (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:ARC[edit]

I saw your comments here. It is astonishing to me that ArbCom is going to pass a motion to sweep this whole damn thing under the rug. Through their inaction, they are giving their official blessing to grossly insulting behavior on this project. There isn't a person alive who doesn't have a temper tantrum once in a while. But this guy went far, far beyond that. He maintained a disgusting level of hatred for at least a week and a half. I've long maintained that our WP:CIVIL policy is void. I think it's a given at this point, and ArbCom has just proved that. Further, I think ArbCom at this point has proven they are incapable of dealing with problems like this. They have just justified the opinions of all those who say admins are a special class of editor. They have ensconced depraved indifference for the civility policy in stone. I am, to say the least, disgusted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's less administrators and more 'my friends' but yeah :( PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just seen this discussion, but I do share the disappointment in the way most of my colleagues (and many (most?) of those commenting) are treating the civility policy as entirely optional for someone who is provoked. If you (or anyone else reading this) have ideas how to improve things in this regard please share them. Asking strong questions at the next arb election would not be inappropriate as one example. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If I block someone for incivility, their friends will come along with the following (from my experience) -
  • 'It's not offensive in my country, so why are you getting upset about it?
  • He/She has never called anyone 'X' before! Therefor we should let them off the hook.
  • Grow a thicker skin
  • There isn't any real harassment on this site, it's all in your head
And my absolute favourite excuse:
  • 'WE ARE HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! NOT BE CIVIL!'
To which my equally capslocked response is:
  • 'IF YOU DON'T STOP CALLING OTHER PEOPLE IDIOTS AND 'CUNTS' THEN WHO WILL BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA? YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS AND NOBODY ELSE. YOU CANNOT DO THIS ON YOUR OWN.'
So. ArbCom. Give administrators a precedent to set their blocks for incivility by, and we'll block the heck out of anyone who pulls this. But without precedent I can choose to do nothing or turn my hobby into a circus of abuse. I know which one I'm picking - and I hate it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I can and will try, but I can't do alone and was outvoted on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Thank you. We all appreciate your efforts, we really do. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for you help with the clean up :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A donated policy that paid out centuries ago has no cash value[edit]

With reference to the last edit on the Manhattan Life Insurance Company page, your reasoning for the undo being Unless they donated a policy covering coolies to the museum, they donated the profit from the venture is not accurate. The company donated the paperwork (i.e. policy documents) to the museum for historical record. No profit or cash valued contract was ever transferred making that statement and entire paragraph irrelevant. Based on the referenced articles and historical facts, The Manhattan Life Insurance Company was not sued for and was not asked to pay reparations ever that your statement insinuates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.222.18 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed then! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously though, I remember creating this article as a favour to someone (I can't remember why, I think it was being deleted and someone was upset? Pretty sure the company had submitted a bad draft) - it wasn't 100% positive and now you've not only threatened to sue me but we've been at this forever. Thank you for being slightly more cordial at this point but jeez louise. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! You're not so bad after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.222.18 (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

" I'm sure everyone can come to an agreement"[edit]

About Homo naledi, I think something should be mentioned about Nature not publishing. Right now I am not opposed to leaving out the word twelve. But I think the fanclub of a notable paleontoligist, or expedition members on wikipedia, or facebook support group of the fanclub or expedition members - might be unwilling to make any concessions. --Here to sway (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Here to sway: - I'm going to stay uninvolved with regards to the content and discussion thereof - but if you have concerns about canvassing on or off wiki let me have a look at it and I'll put up a template. If the edit war starts up again after the protection has been lifted, I'll be happy to protect it again to keep the article stable and come to a consensus. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Update: So far it seems that the discussion is at an impasse: I have suggested one word that can be left unused, and I have asked if there is any sentence that can be worded that has three elements. The discussion might be characterised as a number of people mouthing off, relatively politely - and some might say that I am no worse or better than the others in the discussion. Here to sway (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in regarding the edit war yesterday. I hope you or (an)other sysop(s) can continue to monitor the situation. An RfC was started at my suggestion, but it may take additional management to let this proceed in an orderly fashion. Samsara 11:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibility for a settlement - even without anyone having changed their opinions[edit]

Hi Panyd, even though The muffin is not subtle, will you or someone consider asking the other parties in the RfC if a no-fault freeze of the RfC is acceptable? I suggest, that I will not contest - without improved references (which I have yet to see) - that there is significant opposition against saying in the article that some (or twelve) articles were rejected by Nature (or rejected by a journal).
In part I now see that there has been edit warring going on in other places of the article; perhaps I would like to see that some of those situations finds some sort of equilibrium first. Another point is that I am convinced that there will be a research article in Nature about the find, within 365 days from now. Even if things might turn out so that Berger and/or expedition members are not the first ones to have research articles about the find accepted by Nature, I suspect that the team's openness about their excavations will be instrumental for others to get research article(s) about the find accepted by Nature. I speculate that the find will turn out to be, at least in part, at least one existing species.
I think there is a good chance that the rejection issue might become less significant within months. "Good" peer reviews and/or "bad" peer reviews might contribute to that. Thank you. --Here to sway (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Here to sway: - You're going to have to let the RfC play out - it's the best way to resolve the issue one way or another. A 'no-fault' freeze would simply prolong the disagreement and isn't something that we do. As for 'edit warring', nobody who isn't an administrator can edit the page - and the only involved administrator, @Samsara:, is not editing it and acting completely appropriately. It will end in due time, and that should be the end of it. Other admins have tweaked it slightly, but otherwise nobody has or will touch the content without consensus. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, at least I suggested a no-fault freeze - at least until new significant info and references about the rejection shows up, and that might quite possibly be never. (I am not suggesting that the rejection is not notable.) Continuing with the RfC might be the least demanding alternative. However, one might say that "No intellectual pain, no intellectual gain"? Thanks for having replied. Here to sway (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Two research article's already published at nature.com[edit]

One might consider opening the article, now that the nature.com website has published two research articles that were accepted by Nature Communications (journal), and reported by BBC yesterday. (The articles were accepted in August, according to nature.com.) Here to sway (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi Panyd. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Excellent work on the article Plygain. I really enjoyed reading it. SouthernNights (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Wikiclaus' cheer ![edit]

Wikiclaus.jpg Wikiclaus greetings
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus ! Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg

DYK for Plygain[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ananda Thuriya of Kanba Myint[edit]

Panyd, when you return to DYK in the New Year, please check the nominator's response to your review; with any luck all issues will have been settled to your satisfaction and the nomination can be promoted. Many thanks, and I hope you are having a Happy New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:MenstrualCup[edit]

Seriously?? The editor has never made a single edit. It's absurd and the user name is disgusting. Are you sure you're not an Ivy League academician? Quis separabit? 15:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Their username is a separate issue. And...no? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Volume, Contrast, Brilliance....jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Volume, Contrast, Brilliance....jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)