User talk:Panyd Information & User talk:Panyd Links at HealthHaven.com

HOW'S MY EDITING?
Please review me at Wikipedia:Editor review/Panyd

Welcome!

Hello, Panyd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KUSW

Hi fellow editor. I have added some comments on the proposed deletion and talk pages of KUSW. If my comments came across as being offensive, I apologize. I was merely saying that by deleting KUSW, it could potentially create a case to delete many other radio station articles and I'm sure those that work on them such as myself wouldn't appreciate it. That's what I meant by "opening up a can of worms" per se. I hope you enjoy your time here at Wikipedia and all of us appreciate the help any editor does. Thanks! Also, if you have any questions with anything feel free to ask me or any other editor, we're here to help most of the time :D --milonica (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bow ties

Greetings. I just wanted to let you know that there has been detailed discussion about what being "known for" wearing bow ties means at the deletion debate you posted to recently. It's a very long discussion so I'm not surprised you missed it. Feel free to comment on whether the criteria discussed satisfy your concerns.--otherlleft (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, the deletion debate is far longer than the article itself! I happen to think that the criteria for inclusion are the main drive behind the four deletion nominations - the current debate got me doing a lot of research on the policies and guidelines, and it seems that the key for lists is that they lay out in the lead paragraph (not the name, like I and many other editors thought) exactly what each criterion is. If all the energy of the debate had been focused on retooling that paragraph, none of this would have been necessary!--otherlleft (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lange and Sohne

Why is that vandalism?? It is merely fact. There was no company for the grandson to 'restore', only a trademark.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.16.221 (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly hai2u note

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J Scanlon

USA RUGBY is larger than the NCAA and world rugby is the second largest union in the world to the IOC. Mr. Scanlon has been influential in the spread of Rugby in the United States so please don't belittle him- he has made my job, and the jobs of a lot of people easier and has brought joy to a lot of people who get to play the game competitively because of him- he is more influential than half the people on wikipedia- you just dont know him because you're not involved in rugby, but those involved in rugby know who he is- he is known nationally. Please reconsider as he is extremely notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.117.6 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rollback

I've updated your permissions so you are now free to use rollback. Thanks for being willing to help! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Do not be so hasty to accuse someone of vandalism because you simply disagree with their edits. If you continue to do so, I will regard it as at least being uncivil. Alastairward (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's cool, don't worry about it. I thought you were maybe just trigger happy with one of those little programmes that help with edits. Alastairward (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

I really appreciate your support for helping me out and paticipating in my article in the discussion page. Hope my articles will survive from deletion. 空手道®Jjskarate (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A heads up

I see that you added lots of infoboxes to articles today, which is great. :) Keep in mind though that when adding languages, you have the link go to the language page and not to a disam page. In most that I am running into, you put the language link as [[English]]. English is a disam page and we should avoid links to those at all costs. The link should've been [[English language|English]] instead. I am going through and making the fix to the infoboxes you added today. It's not a huge deal but it's something to keep in mind for the future. Cheers. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey no problem. :) If you need any assistance let me know. Noincludes are something that alot of people don't quite "get" so it's quite alright. And normal. :) Early in my days with templates (mid 07), I had the same issue. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Continental

Where did you get an end date for the TV series The Continental of 23 January 1953? It disagrees with the article itself. — Walloon (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tea Party

Hi Panyd, I replied at my talk. Arzel (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stubs

Hi, Please don't add {{stub}} to an article like Hitz which already has a subject-specific stub tag - just wastes other people's time. And if you are adding a stub tag, please remember it goes at the end, after everything except inter-wiki links, not at the top. Thanks. PamD (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Shona Holmes

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shona Holmes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shona Holmes. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I'm relisting this article and you participated in the first discussion so I'm contacting you if you want to be apart of this discussion. Fire 55 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Thanks for looking for Canadian references. As I noted in the {{afd}} TVOntario broadcast an hour long debate on health care just last week. Her ad was used to preface the debate. And the debate participants referred to her, and the example of her case, multiple times, during the debate. Here is the podcast. Geo Swan (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Snapshot of me 7.png

I have a question about File:Snapshot of me 7.png, which you added OTRS ticket#200910291000553. I am also an OTRS agent and viewed the ticket myself. I'm curious how you established that the person sending in the e-mail was related to the Agrotissa brand, especially since the bottom of the permission declaration wasn't even filled out. This image appears to be a television screenshot or a product label/logo. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright. You'd think, if this was coming from the actual company, they'd send a better quality image anyway. I'm highly skeptical about the authenticity of the permission claim, and was wondering if you looked into this further and know something that I do not ;) Thanks for reviewing this! -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for getting back to me. I am not an IRC regular, but I have been on before. Do you use Firefox? If so, there is an add-on you can get, ChatZilla, which is an IRC client. Then you can click on a link like #wikimedia-otrs, and ChatZilla will automatically connect you. There are also browser based clients as well. Have you seen the IRC page on the OTRS Wiki? Anyway, #wikimedia-otrs is a public channel, so you don't need special permission or anything to join (but you can't talk open about sensitive tickets). If you have more specific issues joining the channel, feel free to ask. You can also log into the OTRS Wiki, and check out the IRC page and request permission to join the private channel, and the users there can help you as well.

As for this issue, you can't take a photo (or even worse, screenshot) of a copyrighted product, and claim ownership to the copyright and thus release the logo or product image under a free license. This image could be retagged as non-free, though, as you suggested, and thus wouldn't need an OTRS ticket. The user has replied on my talk page and confirmed they are not the original copyright holder. Anyway, thanks again for looking into this. If you need any help with anything (OTRS matters, IRC, or anyhting else, feel free to contact me on my talk page, or through e-mail). I'd be glad to help. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Television infobox dates

Hi. I'm here to plead with you to slow down in your effort to add infoboxes to all the TV articles. It's great that you've decided to take on this enormous task, but it has become apparent to me that you are going too fast and leaving too many errors in your wake. I've gathered from your reply here that you are using TV.com as a source (and perhaps IMDb as well). However, both of those sites are considered unreliable sources here, and I'm about to make you one of the lucky editors who will begin to understand why.

As you can read in the wiki article about TV.com the site really got started in 2005 when they acquired TV Tome and its large database of TV shows. Unfortunately, the idiots at TV.com corrupted a lot of that information during the transition. As I've shown below, all the premiere and end dates at TV Tome were just the month and year. However, TV.com uses the day as well, but since these weren't in the original database every date at TV.com just defaulted to the first of the month. Many of the more current and popular shows were fixed by the users at TV.com, but many more remain corrupted. Users, that's another problem. Both TV.com and IMDb get much of their information from the sites users, like here at Wikipedia, except that those sites don't provide references and edit histories, so it's much harder to tell what's good or bad information. TV.com's system of rewarding its users for contributions has also led many users to game the system and contribute all sorts of bad information just to acquire editorship over various guides.

Duggan (TV series)

TV Tome = October 1997 - September 1999
TV.com = October 1, 1997 - September 1, 1999
Your edit = 1 October 1997 - 1 September 1999
IMDb = 13 October 1997 - 28 September 1999

Colonel March of Scotland Yard

TV Tome = February 1956 - April 1957
TV.com = February 1, 1956 - April 1, 1957
Your edit = 1 February 1956 - 1 April 1957
IMDb = 29 February 1956 - 11 September 1956

In the above 2 examples, I'm not suggesting that IMDb has the correct dates, but since they're different from the TV.com dates it should be a cause for concern. So perhaps neither should be used without a reference.

Liocracy

TV Tome = April 2001 - July 2001
TV.com = April 1, 2001 - July 1, 2001
Your edit = 1 April 2001 - 1 July 2001
This article states that the program premiered on April 21, 2001. And this article states that the second season started on November 11, 2002. Both of those dates suggest that TV.com is wrong. As well, in the external links section of the wiki article is the official website. Even though that link is dead now, it can still be entered into the Wayback Machine at archive.org where the front page says that there are 26 half-hour episodes. You put 13 episodes into the infobox, perhaps because that's what IMDb and TV.com said.

Fractured Flickers

TV Tome = January 1963 - January 1964
TV.com = January 1, 1963 - January 1, 1964
Your edit = 1 January 1963 - 1 January 1964
This article from the Chicago Tribune dated September 7, 1963, talks about the show premiering in the fall schedule. The series was syndicated so it's possible that it aired earlier in another market, but 8 months earlier? As well as beginning and ending on New Years Day? Very suspicious.

Fireflies (TV series)

TV Tome = February 2004 - June 2004
TV.com = February 1, 2004 - June 1, 2004
Your edit = 1 February 2004 - 1 June 2004
This article dated Wednesday February 4, 2004 states that the series does not begin until Saturday February 7, 2004, which is the same date that was already in the article that you edited. This newswire also confirms that the premiere took place on February 7, 2004.

History vs. Hollywood

TV.com = January 1, 2001 - December 15, 2004
Your edit = January 1, 2001 - December 15, 2004
Variety magazine said the series wasn't set to premiere until January 22, 2001, and the Los Angeles Times also gave that same date as the premiere.

High School Stories

TV.com = February 1, 2004
Your edit = 1 February 2004
This article says that the pilot was set to premiere April 16, 2003.

Fashion Police (TV series)

TV.com = September 1, 2003
Your edit = 1 September 2003
This article dated September 25, 2002, talks about one of the specials airing that night. And this article dated September 9, 2004, talks about the occasional specials turning into a weekly series on September 20, 2004.

Another obvious error...

House of Style

Your edit = 1 January 1989 - 1 January 1989
Began and ended on the same day? The article states that it aired for 11 years.

So, what am I saying? Reject only TV.com dates that begin on the first of the month? No. That just happens to be a convenient, easy to spot example. I'm hoping that you will reject TV.com (and IMDb) altogether as primary sources. Both sites have some usefulness, which is why they are often placed in the External links section, but they shouldn't be considered reliable sources. I hope that you continue to add TV infoboxes, but please do consider being a little more deliberate. Cheers. Sarilox (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The muffin is not subtle

What is that, or why? LOL Bearian (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an allusion to The Fairly OddParents: Abra-Catastrophe! - I've been trying to find the specific clip for a while now but it's not online! Brilliant cartoon though, even for adults! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MarHedge

Panyd, you said the article I started was terrible. I don't appreciate your anonymous sniping. Then you decided to edit the article. Your edit summary was incomplete and misleading. You said "links" which was true, but you also removed a sentence and added at least two "sentences" of your own, one of which was actually a sentence fragment. Also, the sentence you removed was providing what i considered the main reason for the notability of Marhedge. I think you should try to improve your own editing rather than attacking mine.Rich (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please know I wasn't trying to attack your editing when I said the article was terrible. You are right, I didn't mention that I had added 2 sentences when I did my updates. However, I would like to point out that I am trying to save your article from deletion and that I also added 6 extra references to help assert the article's notability. I spent an hour on that edit to ensure that I gave the article as much as I could give. I still think it's a pretty terrible article (it's a stub for a start and it needs more references and more input from people who know about the hedge fund industry) that needs a lot more input from other users. But I'm on your side here. It's nothing personal. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination)

I've found another good source, this might be worth looking at. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've finished re-writing the lead of this article. Might be worth taking another look at. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Welcomes

I notice you are welcoming new users. At User talk:Thesweaterhat, I've added {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Check (fabric)}}, as this new user's only edit was unconstructive. I see you've reverted it. I find it worth looking at the quality of the contributions before deciding what welcome to give. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Review: done

I have done an editor review for you at Wikipedia:Editor review/Panyd. Sorry for the delay in getting one done - we are slowly catching up with the backlog!

Perhaps you could consider doing a review of another editor? It takes a bit of time (reviews can take anywhere from about 15 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on how many contributions the editor has made, where they have contributed, etc).

The ones marked with a * are those editors who have not been reviewed yet - if you want to review one of these, make sure you remove the asterisks in the parts indicated!

If you have not done a review before, you might feel more comfortable giving a second review to an editor - this will show you an example of a review that has been done, and show you the kinds of things that can be commented on.

I hope that you find the review useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents