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)

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

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Please note discussion on the 3RR page.--Mantanmoreland 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not sure to what discussion you are referring. Peyna 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This one 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I'll re-examine this later today. Peyna 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Peyna - I suggested a new location for this information - see the new article proposal at CJCoLDS and new merge target at the Animals article. -- Trödel 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Year pronunciation
Remember your vote on 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)


 * 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)


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


 * Well, we don't need both articles. Merge and redirect. Peyna 16:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then just change your Afd vote; and don't forget to strike out your original vote. Georgia guy 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

"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)


 * Truth hurts. You are talking about things you know nothing about. Again, stop being stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.121.195 (talk • contribs)


 * If you wish to be a constructive force at Wikipedia, I suggest you learn how to get along with others. Peyna 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And if you want to be an intelligent "force" at Wikipedia, don't post on thigns you know nothing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.121.195 (talk • contribs)

Ptmccain redux
Using AOL this time, as threatened when he was banned.--Mantanmoreland 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm, well honestly that section was a bit long, so I didn't think much of the edit; what probably could be done is to better summarize what is there and make sure it is covered in detail in the sub article. Peyna 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the lop-off and edit summary are definitely Ptmccain. The section is indeed long, but requires surgery and not amputation, as does the rest of the article I think.--Mantanmoreland 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal drinking age
Hi, Peyna. I see that you have reverted my edit to the legal drinking age article. I totally agree with you that references should be provided whenever possible. However, i was wondering what kind of reference i could provide. I've grown up in Azerbaijan and lived there till only 1 year ago. I know from my own, my friends experiences, and there friends' experiences the de facto situation. I do not think that any literature exists on the topic. Thus, personal experience is as good as it can get in this case. I'm not trying to push through my edits or anything and i will not add that information unless a consensus is reached. I just feel, that in this particular case the lack of a strong reference is not important enough to ignore information that can slightly enrich wikipedia. For example, i have not seen any references cited for the other countries under "de facto" or even under "drinking age". Of course, may be i just do not understand what defact means. if you could explain that to me.

sorry, as usual forgot to sign.mikakasumov 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't doubt your personal experiences and what not, but Wikipedia guidelines require that we use verifiable information. Perhaps news reports, etc. would suffice.  If we can't find anything verifiable, then frankly, we probably can't include it. Peyna 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Penya rocks section!!!
Just a note to say THANK YOU for fixing the screwed up Cincinnati, OH, USA section of Wiki. I tried to fix it, and found myself fouling it up even further! I don't even understand how it got so screwed up, but wanted to try to fix it. So... thanks. Theguyinblue 19:20, 18 Aug, 2006
 * Heh, yeah it was something weird with the table. Thanks for the note. Peyna 01:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Missouri Bellwether
I would like to get your thoughts on the Missouri Bellwether article since it's been re-written, in particular with your OR concern. It looks like consensus on the AfD is gearing towards Keep but I would truly want to make sure your concerns are address and ideally would like to get it to the point where you would consider withdrawing the nomination. Also, you seem very well read on the topic and any contribution you could make (particularly to the section with dissenting views about Missouri's bellwether status) that would be an asset. If you could respond on the article's talk page, I would appreciate it! Agne 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther talk page
I noticed you removed the side by side split i.e. this format:
 * { | table of contents || list of talk page header announcements | }

I personally like the side by side so I can jump right to the talk page section I have been reading. Do you mind if I change it back and clean it up a little - I agree it was untidy before you cleaned it up some. -- Trödel 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever you prefer; for some reason I was having to scroll past the list of header announcements to get to the TOC. Peyna 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

J.D. Mediation
Please note that there is a Mediation conversation at Talk:J.D. in regards to WP:MedCab. --Jon Cates 01:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Theology of Martin Luther
Dear Peyna: In order to begin the process of reducing the size of the Martin Luther article, I've begun this article to allow a detailed disucssion of Luther's theology. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your help in editing this article so that it fulfills that purpose. Thanks! --CTS Wyneken (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Killing/destroyed
The reason for the phrasing (and I'm happy with how LrdChaos rewrote it) was that the airplane didn't kill the victims; the impact did. Therefore, "The airplane impacted the ground, killing most victims instantly, and was destroyed in the resulting fire" is proper, and "The airplane impacted the ground, killed most victims instantly, and was destroyed..." is not. --chris.lawson 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very awkward sentence either way and should be rewritten for clarity. Peyna 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comar 5191 Victims list
Hey, this edit is finally the start of a good section which has been called "Victims". I think this is much closer to encyclopedic, the only thing I can see at this point is deleting the last paragraph, about "...Only a few friends and family members...". The last sentence could be kept and combined with the passenger manifest list, until it is deleted. I expect it will be deleted, but I set it off into a separate Wiki page so the focue could be directed more productively. I honestly can see FOR and AGAINST positions for the separate page. In the "pure" Wiki it must of course be deleted because it is a simple list and also can be seen as a memorial. In considering the arguments on why to keep the page, it only boils down to one: The people died as a group, and their death is the main reason for interest in the accident. If everyone had walked away from the incident (e.g. if they had just rolled off the runway) with a few broken bones we would not even care to notice who the people were. In this sense, I feel it is in keeping with principal #1 of the Five pillars - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of ....almanacs. I see the vitim list as an almanac. Without the names, the number of the dead people in the accident becomes just a number. It is rather like the Wall, in Washington. When one sees the wall, it is not the black marble or the V shape that makes a difference, it is the names. Again, I mention this not because Wikipedia is a memorial, but the names tell the story better than "49 dead" and "1 survivor". After all, we have kept it titled "Victims". What is a Victim without a name? Well I wrote more than I intended but I wanted to thank you for the edit. I have found that with this article, if I make an edit it is subject to much scrutiny so I did not want to touch that section. Cheers! Mfields1 21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Henry Cabot Lodge at Boston Wiki page
I have no response from you since May, 2006. What gives?

Henry Cabot Lodge QUOTE

I am soliciting comments about the possible inclusion of the following:

In the book "Boston" by Henry Cabot Lodge, I find a quote that I would like to add to the Boston page. It is,

In the political events which have affected the history of the entire country, and in shaping the thought of a people who have come to be a great nation, Boston has played a leading part.

from: Boston / Henry Cabot Lodge (New York : Longman's, 1891) Mark Preston 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could summarize what the quote is saying and include it in a section regarding the history of Boston, but I'd stay away from actually including the quote unless you find an appropriate context for it. Peyna 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean that you do not like the inclusion of this quote. I'm unable to summarize anything this short. It's only 35 words long. Mark Preston 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Mark Preston 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then add it and see what happens, I'm just another editor like you. Peyna 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

--CTS Wyneken (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Theatre
Hi, I made the page for the Victoria Theatre and I will take your advice... Thanks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkDonna (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Frank Schilling
An article that you have been involved in editing, Frank Schilling, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Frank Schilling. Thank you. --GreenJoe 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Jewish American fashion designers
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Jewish American fashion designers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Burger King
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following this request. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Burger King/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Jewish American activists for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jewish American activists 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 Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American activists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Jewish American psychologists for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jewish American psychologists 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 Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American psychologists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. TartarTorte 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rogers Cup (disambiguation)


The article Rogers Cup (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Per WP:2DABS"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)