User talk:Panyd/Archive 3

Regards Bryan de Bois Gilbert (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Bryan de Bois Gilbert[reply]

Hey there! Firstly, please be assured that it isn't an allegation, it's just a notice that you might have a conflict of interest. That is in no way saying that you do have a conflict of interest, and you have my sincerest apologies is that policy does not apply to you in this instance.

However, the language that you have inserted into the Maths-Bridge article is what appeared to be non-neutral, and we've had problems with editors with a conflict of interest editing the page before now. The problems specifically relate to the new section which doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article, and the non-neutral language of your large additions, as well as the use of primary sources in the article, as opposed to reliable secondary sources.

I would suggest that you read

WP:SPA

, or single-purpose account which is another reason to believe you have a conflict of interest. There are many articles on Wikipedia which could use your assistance and we'd love to have you!

Similarly, could you please clarify what you mean by 'we' in your response? Happy editing. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: When I said 'we' would deliberate, I was refering to you and me; as you know I am new to all of this and thus was really believing, your friendly words and the offered help would be more than platitudes.

Secondly, you can keep the sarcasm out of this, it is not polite. We had one conversation and you are already comparing me with other users of this page and more sadly with other user, who edited the same page I edited.

Thirdly, calling the European Union an unreliable source is somehow strange. We are talking an still ongoing non-profit project financed by the EU to help upcoming students close their gaps in the field of maths and thus maby entitle them to a better future. I think every student in all of Europe who is planning on studying something that involves lots of math should know about this project and beef himself up.

Let us talk content. The new section I inserted, which has supposedly nothing to do with the subject, is in my opion the most important one, as it builds the premise as to why the project was started in the first place. Many drop-out, low level of knowledge leads to a pan-european program to make things better. As to non-neutral language: I'am describing socio-economic conditions as you would find them in many books on the subject, state a social fact which I backed up with the help of Eurostat and came to an inference to which I was about to add some more sources to back my point. It was an absolut valid deductive process without using words like catastrophic or so forth which contain value additions. So, I don't really see the problem here of non-neutral.

I will edit a lot more articles, but as the old saying goes "Finish what you start, than move on".

Look, I now get why you thought what ever it is you thought I was. So, let's start over new; cultivate a better understanding and a better tone of conversation in the future. Once again thanks for your (this time not quite as friendly) advice.

Regards Bryan de Bois Gilbert (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Bryan de Bois Gilbert[reply]

Sarcasm was not meant in my response in any way, shape of form and if any offense has been caused it was not intended. I sincerely meant what I said, including happy editing.

I wasn't referring to the EU when I mentioned about the sources which do not meet

WP:RS

, I was very specifically referring to the use of the maths-bridge website as a source as you have done in the Project Goals section.

I fully agree that the section you added has merit in giving context to the article but I think that this could be severely shortened, perhaps even down to one sentence, and that a section about an issue which is very complex and boderlines on

WP:OR

is not something we should be doing.

I would suggest that we move this discussion to the article's talk page, as this way more people will be able to access it and weigh in on the article itself.

One more note, I appreciate that you wish to finish what you have started before moving on to other projects, however, please do, as sentences such as: I think every student in all of Europe who is planning on studying something that involves lots of math should know about this project and beef himself up. - represent deep feelings regarding the subject and once again I must stress that if you have a COI (even as a fan of the project) this will intefer in your ability to be

neutral

, it's just human nature.

And please read

WP:AGF. I hope I have assumed good faith of you, I would ask that you please do the same of me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Panyd. You have new messages at VictorianMutant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! :) I saw you had made edits recently to John Travolta page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Travolta. I found something else that needs a correction on the page and I also wanted to make some suggestions for additions based on research:

What is listed on John Travolta's wiki page under "Singles": "Can't Let You Go" (1975)

Suggested change: "Can't Let You Go" (1977)

See link to album for confirmation: http://www.discogs.com/John-Travolta-Cant-Let-You-Go/master/153534

Suggested ADDITIONS to Singles section: "Take A Chance" (1983) #3 (duet with Olivia Newton-John) "Take A Chance" was a duet John Travolta recorded with Olivia Newton-John from Two Of A Kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Newton-John_discography http://www.billboard.com/album/olivia-newton-john/two-of-a-kind/92960#/album/olivia-newton-john/two-of-a-kind/92960

"Two Sleepy People" (1997) (duet w/Carly Simon)

(John Travolta recorded a duet with Carly Simon "Two Sleepy People" in 1997 http://www.amazon.com/Film-Noir-Carly-Simon/dp/B000002VTP)

I am new to Wikipedia and learning as I go. Thank you! Angilosi (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's great that you've found all of that information! However, I suggest that you take a chance and

WP:BEBOLD and edit it yourself! If you need any help with this just let me know and I'll be happy to assist. If you get it wrong don't worry! That's what the revert button is for. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you! Ok :) for some reason I thought I couldn't because it is semi protected page. Angilosi (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Panyd. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Contribution_Team/Backlogs? We're trying to make a big effort to reduce these for the rest of the month. Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Email. ϢereSpielChequers 12:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• was this ready to go up? A user transcluded your RFA and it wasn't clear that they were acting on your behalf. Usually the candidate or the nominator transcludes a RFA (and does it properly too :-) ). I have undone the listing in case it wasn't ready but please feel free to revert me if I misread the situation.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(edit conflict)Panyd, your RFA has been transcluded to the active list with no indication that this was actually what you intended. Should I undo it so you have more time to work on it, or are you ready now? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, I just undid it so I don't know if this is moot.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am definitely not ready yet! Still working on it. I will be soon though. Thank you guys for reverting it for me! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Panyd, The Utahraptor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good luck with your RfA. I hope it goes well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 24 November 2010 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should receive the first...

		The Great Backlog Drive Misc Barnstar
		Great work with the banners and barnstars. —J04n(talk page) 00:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good answers

Wished to congratulate you on the wonderful effort you've taken on answering each and every question on your RfA. It's rare to see such sincere effort. Best wishes and warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! And thank you for your wonderfully contructive support vote. Means a lot that you took the time to write it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Through it I found two small problems at

G.  ツ 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Always happy for any help! Thank you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the

That's absolutely fantastic news! Thank you so much. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I have just come across your William Hacket draft. How's it going? My interest right now is in John Udall (Puritan) which I created yesterday, given that there were some links between the Coppinger-Arthington-Hacket group and Udall's imprisonment. In fact Udall was appealing in 1591, and some sources say that the Hacket incident made it harder for Udall to make the case for his release. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping to get my Hacket piece up to GA standard (which might be a little ambitious but hey!) so it's going a little slowly. There are at least two articles written on the man which could qualify as books in their own right. Anything you could send my way would be really appreciated though. It's such an involved yet insane plot! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've decided to keep it as a draft in user space until it's GA? Not my way of working of course, but that still seems to be a slow way to develop an encyclopedia ... I've currently got sidetracked by Calais, and I shall probably go back to Wikisource shortly for much of my time. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a few minutes now, so I doubt I'll jinx you by being the first. Over 100 supports and no (as yet) opposes! Very well done indeed... may your adminship be as smooth as your Rfa. Best wishes, always! Jusdafax 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...103 in unanimous support. It's been a long time since we had a

Panyd/Archive 3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations! (