User talk:Penelope37

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film) ‎

Welcome back, Penelope37!
Thank you for your contributions to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film)
‎ I am Gareth Griffith-Jones... feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 08:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Penelope37. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MisterShiney ✉ 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Penelope37. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MisterShiney ✉ 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man Down

In regard to this edit: there is no reason whatsoever to copy the billing order on some poster or someplace else in our articles. But that's not even what matters--what really matters is that the language you restored falls foul of the requirement that we edit neutrally. That means you don't put stuff like "acclaimed Swedish international hit" in the lead. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. He was saying that the poster was justification. I used the OFFICIAL IMDb billing list.

and the language was not foul. Being acclaimed is a fact not an opinion.

Perhaps English is not your first language. We don't put stuff like "acclaimed" in the lead. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe English isn't your first language. Did you not read the rest of what I said? "I didn't. He was saying that the poster was justification. I used the OFFICIAL IMDb billing list." The IMDb billing order list has Howard above Cooper.

Ahem. As it happens, you're right on one point, haha. But you obviously didn't know the idiom "falls foul of". Also, please sign your messages on talk pages. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tlatelolco. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chappie (film). Last warning for this before you get blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Chappie (film). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

Also edit warring over the course of several days... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chappie (film)

Look, I don't want to take you to WP:ANI. That's a lot of drama toward no real good end. You need to stop edit warring to remove a reliable source. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, which means that we quote what the reliable sources says. We don't do our own research. When you examine the production companies and make an inference based on them, that's what we call original research. I'm sure that you believe you're right, but you can't put your opinions in a Wikipedia article. We go by what the sources say, not what our own beliefs are. You've been reverted by both me and Flyer22 on this over the course of several days. At this rate, you're going to end up violating the three revert rule. It's not worth it. Just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Penelope37 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: ). Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate Sanctions Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Cheers.--Jorm (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long term edit warring at Chappie (film), as explained on your talk page. Since there is no way to get you to follow consensus, this block appears necessary.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

contribs)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Penelope37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock. I was falsely blocked. Penelope37 (talk) 11:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Looks like a valid block to me. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Penelope37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock. I was falsely blocked. I never edit warred. Simply stated the result of the discussion area.Penelope37 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looks like a valid block to me, too. WP:GAB shows you how to craft a meaningful unblock request. Yamla (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Penelope37. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

advice that would have been in my decline but NeilN was too fast for me

Sorry, but no. It's as NeilN has said. To elaborate-- 1)" See the messages you removed from your talk page" for starters. 2)"There was no consensus. You are biased and will be stripped of your powers very soon " --- how's that working for you? 3) "Please unblock. I was falsely blocked", er no. Clearly from the forgoing, you do not understand the reason for your block. There is no way to ensure you will not resume your disruptive editing if unblocked. You might also give some attention to this, this, and this. Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]