| Revision as of 20:03, 19 January 2015 editMontanabw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,438 edits →Within scope of PP?: Heh← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:29, 20 January 2015 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 editsm →January 2015: typoNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| :{{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. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:42, 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Great, no worries, thanks! Given that you protected the "right" version, I'm reasonably content for the moment. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | ::Great, no worries, thanks! Given that you protected the "right" version, I'm reasonably content for the moment. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == January 2015 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| You were told to leave Johnny's user page alone. You can be unblocked when you agree to leave it alone. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:29, 20 January 2015
Still Active, Just Might Have a Few Days In Bed
 | Panyd is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated. |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
:)
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)
- I do like this script.
- Yours sincerely, Panyd 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your admin action at Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant.
Perhaps you could have a look at likely meatpuppetry at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Johnnydowns_and_blocked_user_Vegetablelasagna1?
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Panyd 19:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Fag Army AFD
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)
- 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)
- 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:. Panyd 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- (I see there is a PROD, so this might not be necessary, although I find the wording somewhat problematic) Panyd 11:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- (I see there is a PROD, so this might not be necessary, although I find the wording somewhat problematic) Panyd 11:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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:. Panyd 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
PP on Executive summary
That was good idea if they can resolve their own issue assuming good faith. But any way, dispute has been closed here . 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 14:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @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. Panyd 15:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Panyd 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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 15:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Panyd 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Within scope of PP?
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 19:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @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. Panyd 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Great, no worries, thanks! Given that you protected the "right" version, I'm reasonably content for the moment. Montanabw 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
You were told to leave Johnny's user page alone. You can be unblocked when you agree to leave it alone. Jehochman 12:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)