User talk:Peyna/Archive3

Archive3 Peyna 02:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Marty Meehan
BTW, thanks for cleaning up the mess created by the different reverts on the Marty Meehan article... the popups revert is powerful, but dangerous when two editors are working simultaneously. Schutz 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened is that someone made a meaningful edit, but the version of the page that edit was made to happened to be one of the vandalized versions. Popups is a nice timesaver, but people still need to do the usual checks before using it. Peyna 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that only afterwards, but you were quicker than me to fix the mess... ;-) Schutz 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

List Of people with attention deficit disorder
You erased the scientist because they're dead, but it's approximatly sure that they were ! Search on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.168.136 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, but present conjecture about the disorders of people of the past are not valid. Unless someone sat them down and conducted a proper interview and did the other tests used to determine the existence of ADD, we cannot claim that they had ADD.  Peyna 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with you about what is happening on this page. I personaly would be inclined to list it on AfD again. BTW, this time, the popups revert did something strange, since it reverted to the last version (except for a blank line) and not the previous one. Any idea about what happenend ? Schutz 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea why that happened; might be something do to with the template. I agree with the AfD, but didn't want to be the one to list it myself at this time. Peyna 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to list it with AfD so as to attract more participation in the discussion. Peyna 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, as you can see on the AfD... Schutz 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

??
SEARCH BEFORE DO THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.141.165 (talk • contribs)
 * Okay. What am I searching, and who did what? Peyna 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whidden Hall
I know what you mean in a way. Thanks. Ardenn 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I had an idea for how to resolve this that I meant to put in the debate (I am surprised it was closed so quickly given the vandalism and sockpuppeting that its supporters engaged in; IMO that should strongly argue in favor of deletion, see here). For now, I have put it on the talk page. Daniel Case 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've responded on that talk page and taken the action of formally proposing merger to the university article. Peyna 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kind words
you are an idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.226.6 (talk • contribs)
 * I must be doing something right. Peyna 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments
I didn't attack that user though. He's making false accusations. Ardenn 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then respond to his accusations on your talk page; but he didn't make any accusations, he just posted a comment directing your attention to the policy. Peyna 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't attack anyone and Ardenn is making a big fuss out of everything. It is Ardenn who put that warning on my talk page first which I think it mis-use of Wikipedia guidelines. 24.57.131.18 22:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you both need to take a break from each other and go improve some other articles. Peyna 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bot removing unsourced images from pages after 5 days instead of 7
It seems as if your bot is removing unsourced images from pages 5 days after they're marked with the unsourced tag, instead 7 as recommended. See Image:Universityofdayton.jpg. Thanks. Peyna 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's by design. By removing images two days before the earliest they can be deleted, it gives other users watching the article notification that the image has a problem, and a chance to fix the lack of source or copyright information. --Carnildo 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; just wanted to make sure. Peyna 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Afd -> Rfd: Thanks
Hi.

Thanks very much for providing additional information on how to proceed with the issue of the unnecessary redirect. Your input is greatly appreciated. Cheers. Folajimi 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)(talk)


 * No problem, it can be difficult to track down some of the policies, procedures and guidelines. Peyna 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OBE / OBE (disambiguation) merge.
There is an issue that came up while I was working on the Overtaken By Events stub. There are two articles — OBE & OBE (disambiguation) — addressing terms based on that acronym.

Methinks these articles should be merged, considering the amount of content overlap between both articles. According to the instructions for merging articles, it seems that this effort requires the involvement of Administrators. Am I right, or is this an issue that can be taken care of by any registered user?

Also, while creating a few redirects for the new stub, I accidentally created the "Overcome By Events" redirect page (quotation marks included.) Does the redirect page merit forwarding to the RfD pool for additional action? Folajimi 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would probably be appropriate to move the content from OBE to OBE (disambiguation) and then leave a redirect in place. As for your second question, since it was a page created in error, you can probably just send it to speedy deletion.  Peyna 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the proper form is to use the article name without (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page if that page is not currently an article. I've moved the dab page to OBE. --Pagrashtak 05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Peyna 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles edited by interested parties
Does the phrasing "Articles edited by involved parties" or even "Articles shown to have been edited by involved parties" sound any better to you?

Watching page, reply here. =)

Yeago 08:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links
Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert
My apologies about the pop-up Thomas Jefferson revert. I shouldn't have done that. --ZachPruckowski 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Peyna 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Olympic Table
I think the table is quite small, and is an important event. Also, if you try to move it under the photo, etc, it upsets everything. I also tried it too, earlier, to see what it looked like. If you can move it (the table) elsewhere, nicely, you are welcome to do so. Normally, though, most articles of other prominent people have their gold medal(s) at the top right. Wallie 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I thought it looked a little awkward at the top like that; perhaps having it on the left somewhere would work better. Really the problem is the two infoboxes don't line up that well.  The asthetic parts of Wikipedia can be a pain to work with sometimes, but I think it's important for Wikipedia to be taken seriously to have pages formatted in a way that looks appealing to the eye.  Thanks for the comments. Peyna 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be asthetically pleasing. I guess things will improve over time, as the software gets better and better, and someone comes up with a new idea every now and then. The Olympic medal table seems to reside at the top right at present, for many many other prominent people, eg, Sebastian Coe, who has also done other things too (like Mohommed Ali). I am sure that the table could be moved elsewhere, made more appealing, smaller, line up etc in the future. Wallie 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Instant Runoff Voting
Hee hee hee - for your information, 'i.e.' is an abbreviation for the latin "id est" = "that is to say". No example is implied by using 'i.e.' - it is used as a replacement for "in other words" or "in fact". 'eg' is a similar abbreviation for "exemplum gratias" = "for the sake of an example", which is used to indicate an example in the following phrase. Removing the 'i.e.' in that particular case made sense becuase it made the english flow more smoothly, but just FYI for the future: 'i.e.' does NOT suggest an example.

Happy-melon 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it seemed awkward where it was. =] Peyna 16:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali
You asked about his real name, a long time ago of course

To answer this, Muhammad Ali was given to him by Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam at the time. However, since he did get the proper name chance with the proper documentation, you could, I guess, call it his "real" name -Wolfie001 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Shellfish
Great to see Wikipedians who can discuss different views without losing their tempers. Blarneytherinosaur 02:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm, shellfish, it's like you know me. Peyna 02:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dayton natives
You participated in the "Notable Natives" discussion on Talk:Dayton, Ohio last month. No resolution was reached and the list still contains non-natives. That's why I added the disputed tag yesterday. It even linked to the appropriate section of the talk page, so I don't see why you deleted it due to non-discussion.—mjb 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I forgot about that discussion and since no one had participated in it for awhile, figured it was closed. If you want to reopen the discussion, that's fine.  It might make it clearer to others if when you add the disputed tag to a section that you also make a post explaining why you added it, even if it is just to reference an already ongoing discussion. Peyna 03:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cincinnati
People mispell "Cincinnati" frequently. I set it up so that anyone searching for "Cincinatti" would be redirected to the the article with the correct spelling. That was my intention.
 * A redirect from Cincinatti to Cincinnati is fine, but no need to mention it at the article for Cincinnati. Peyna 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)