Jump to content

User talk:Penwhale/Archive11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

[edit]

Hi Penwhale. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

[edit]
You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2011 Draft

[edit]
Hello, Penwhale. You have new messages at Soccer-holic's talk page.
Message added 11:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank you for doing that 100% in line with wiki policies and guidelines, and the definition of that tag! --Lvhis (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dome of the Rock

[edit]

this edit reminded me of a report I want to file about Asad. May I? Chesdovi (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer you seek other people's input, as I have no knowledge of the area at all whatsoever. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, as long as you have no problem with me filing a report. Chesdovi (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a "I don't see a problem with you filing a report" statement, but more of a "You should ask someone else whether you should file that request or not" statement. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I know the only problem you seem to have is your knowledge of Islam, not that I am precluded from filing reports. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ただいま。

[edit]

Hello there. Any articles you want to work on? Mainly anime/manga but I am open to suggestions. -- Cat chi? 09:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

... Wow o.O You are back to the realm of the living, right? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Undead maybe :p I will finally have time for them wikis I think. Although my schedule is as always quite hectic. -- Cat chi? 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way you particularly busy? -- とある白い猫 chi? 01:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Why? o.o - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for a protected page

[edit]

I made an edit protected for that protected page, and listed my reasons. Could you please take a look there and kindly give some help? Thank you. The mediation on the dispute is closed with failure to resolve the dispute, i.e. the dispute is still ongoing. --Lvhis (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the dispute at the Senkaku Islands page

[edit]

Hi Penwhale. I think you acted rather hastily in removing the dispute tag from the above article. First, it is disputed - it's not clear cut as you suggested. Second, there's no reason that the tag must be there right now. Third, you raised COI and I think it's correct for two reasons - i) you removed the tag in the past, overriding Feezo; and ii) Lvhis personally asked you to remove the tag.

If you read this soon, I think it would be good if you could remove the tag and let someone else decide how to address it. But I decided to raise the issue at the Admin intervention board, as I wasn't sure when you would next be on. I hope you don't take offence, and I'm sure you acted purely out of good faith. But I think your intervention was very inappropriate. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's, your using the word "removed" in above are really confusing. If you want to argue against adding the tag, you should argue on my two main points in my edit requested. You'd better to read the wp guideline Wikipedia:POV Cleanup#Guidelines for cleanup at least 3 times or more before you made such complain again and again. Admin Penwhale just did a thing 100% in line with wp policy and guidelines, nothing with COI at all! --Lvhis (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penwhale, I'm a little confused by your actions re Senkaku Islands—you said on June 29 that I should "feel free to remove [the tag] when the medation closes"—yet only a day after I did so, you answered a protected edit request to restore the tag. Has the situation changed? You should also be aware, if you aren't already, that there is a currently open ANI case on this. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied at your talk and ANI. Mentioned my defense at Article talk. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The above close of the community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy is against consensus

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The above close of the community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy is against consensus. Your closing statement should be made as a comment, not as a close. You overrode community consensus in that debate. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Publishers

[edit]

Hi, yes, I realize that I violated 3RR, too, but hoped this would fall under vandalism fighting. I guess that's stretching the rules a bit. But what do I do with an IP who does not want to dicuss and insists on inserting all kind of stuff into an article that doesn't really belong there? This particular article has been a pain for a long time... (And to heap it on, they also spam me all the time... :-). Anyway, I will leave reverting the IP's latest edit to somebody else and back off for a while. Thanks for listening... --Crusio (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penwhale, Can't be sure of the timing, but it looks to me like IP address 31.11.74.215 is continuing to edit war after his 24 hr block [1]. Famousdog (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, 2 consecutive edits, and more than 12 hours old, so I'm willing to wait and see whether he keeps up. Perhaps you should discuss with the IP on his talk page? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S/he's still making pointless edits against what appears to be consensus [2]... Famousdog (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try post to IP's talk page? Ask the IP why they want to keep an "Impact" section in the article. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Penwhale. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 17:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calvin • 999 17:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

thanks for this :) Much appreciated (was obviously going a bit too fast) Jalexander--WMF 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Because the idea of a Chinese welcome template is, frankly, A Brilliant Idea. Yunshui (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Ok, almohads was a dynasty (as family) but was a country too. According to all references legal heirless of Almohads was another (not Marinid dynasty).

  • When Istiqal party create "Greater Morocco" says: all arab countries in Morocco was only one (Morocco).
  • Kingdom of Fez was exits! (Reyno de Fez in Treaty of Tordesillas not Wattasid dynasty)
  • Algeciras, Gibraltar, Ronda and Malaga was part of Marinid Empire (part of: Algeria, Gibraltar, Morocco, Spain) North Africa & South Europe
  • nationality = Moroccan...?????? it`s an Anachronism!.Bokpasa 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Since my request on ANI was archived [3] without any answer by Ioeth, should I understand that all Bokpasa's OR/POV edits will not be reverted and that he will not be blocked as it is the 3rd time he vandalizes these (same) articles?
Btw, as I wrote before, I will not revert these edits, even after the expiry of the protection, without the consent of an admin or of the board... I don't think that Bokpasa works the same way.
Omar-Toons (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

repeat sockpuppets vs. banned editors

[edit]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=436338835&oldid=436312677   FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cent listing of block notice discussion

[edit]

I note you relisted the discussion, however discussion stopped nine days ago. Relisting it gives the impression that it's a new discussion, and is somewhat misleading. We only list active discussions on Cent. Interest has faded from that discussion, and it's now waiting for someone to sum it and close it. I can't do that, as I took part in the discussion. However, you haven't taken part in the discussion, so you could have a go at summing it up to see if there is a consensus - and if so, updating WP:REMOVED. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban for Makesense thread

[edit]

I have responded to your suggestion ahead of Zac and fixed some of his pipelinks for clarification up to the example he used of mine, even making a list of those ten examples. I've left the remainder for him to fix up on his own, but ATM what's there is a good start. I've also notified the user to check for any errors as I simply tried to merge links with neighbouring text and didn't check every link myself (except for the list of ten). CycloneGU (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On agreeing with 'shonen

[edit]

Not often agree with little 'shonen? That your problem, little user! [Bishzilla sticks the little user in her pocket. We'll just have to see if he's ever heard from again. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 11:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

...? CycloneGU (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[4]. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Versus relaunch on the 2nd?

[edit]

Every source I've read said the 1st. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Sardinia

[edit]

Hi Penwhale. I saw another block for the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia. Can a single user (Srnec) impose his own single view, call for a poll and (when our wiki-community refused his point of view) reject the result, refusing to show even a single English source according to his version (his version is more than poor of sources: it is COMPLETELY unreferenced! What about WP:SOURCES?)
I prevent a probable objection: speaking with him is completely useless, because he thinks that talk pages are simply places where he can explain why his versions must be imposed. I think that now it is time to take a decision: are wiki-guidelines as WP:SOURCES or WP:CONSENSUS relevant or they are simply a joke? --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

68,697 bytes of talk page is not enough discussion? An opinion that can be hardly sustained.... (By the way, what are "RfC/RfM"?)--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks for this fix [5]! causa sui (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out what was wrong, then I dived into the ReGex expression on that page (which, for the record, I'm not good at reading). Luckily it wasn't difficult to figure out what happened... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Park

[edit]

Hello Penwhale. I noticed just now you posted on ANI that you had "full protected" Annabel Park for one week, but when I went to check afterwards, it appears the page can still be edited. Have I misunderstood what "full protected" means? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, it had me confused at first too.  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Han-yi Shaw

[edit]

Please take a look at a stub article about a research fellow at National Chengchi University. Perhaps you may have suggestions or comments? --Tenmei (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) article and sub page idea

[edit]

Hi Penwhale, I have recently been randomly asked to comment on the Boris Berezovsky (businessman) discussion. It seems that the whole structure of the article is in question. (see recent discussion on the article's talk page.) I have suggested that we create a user (my own) subpage to try out a new structure. I am rather new to all this and don't want to add to the complexity unnecessarily. I have noted that you have protected the article and have been the last admin to be involved; thus my note to you here. Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bokpasa

[edit]

Hello,

I saw that Bokpasa started his disruptive edits again [6] and is involved in an EW with an IP editor...

Unfortunately, and as it is shown by the diffs that I shared on the ANI board [7] [8] [9] [10], this guy is well known for his PoV-Pushing, and I don't think that the EW can be stopped until he stops his PoV edits.

As he can't quit editing without any discussion and as all the previous tentatives to convince him failed, isn't a RfC-User the more appropriate way to stop that? Or can any admin intervene basing on Bokpasa's previous cases of PoV pushing and nationalist editing?

Omar-Toons (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrect the ANI report. Considering there are other SPI/socks involved, more eyes are needed. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Penwhale. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand

[edit]

Hello, you informed Gila that her block was suspended, but you did not actually unblock her so she remains blocked. nableezy - 16:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, pays to read the end of the sentence. Thanks. nableezy - 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

[edit]

Hi, I saw that you were listed in Wikipedia:Translators available from Chinese to English, and I need a translation of a religious title for an article. It's 万众尊崇法力无边仁慈祥和的佛法之王, the literal meaning of Gyaltsen Norbu's title, which I gleaned from his zhwiki article. Could you translate that phrase into English for me? Quigley (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DEL REV

[edit]

Hi Penwhale!

You recently said in a DEL REV on WP:BLPSIGN that an RFC or VPP needs to happen. Would you please be generous enough to start one coz I don't know the procedure, yet. Thanks. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of arbitration case opened

[edit]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

You've added a lot of parties to ArbCom cases recently, on orders from higher up, but I hope you'll draw the line.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature trouble

[edit]

I have already received a warning for my signature and removed them almost instantly. Please refer to some of the latest signs and you will see no images. Only some messages still remain with the sign and since i cant resign or countersign the messages, i abandoned them. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

[edit]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

[edit]
Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-sanctions

[edit]

When adding new entries to {{Uw-sanctions}}, please make sure that they are added in all 3 places - with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, you added it only in the first; I went and completed the task. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

[edit]
You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Abortion "page" ban

[edit]

Could I ask you to take another look at the templates you've added to Talk:Abortion? You wrote that the topic-banned editors were banned only from the article but were permitted to edit the talk page. That's not correct - as far as I can tell, these editors were banned from all abortion-related pages, a term that typically encompasses all namespaces and not just articlespace. This distinction was discussed on the Proposed Decision talkpage, and my understanding is that the Arbs explicitly voted to ban these editors from all namespaces, including Talk:Abortion. Would you mind taking another look and updating these templates? Thanks. MastCell Talk 05:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd like confirmation here also. And see below.DMSBel (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was there further discussion, re. not extending to talk pages?DMSBel (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused, I had not seen that there had been a change from articles to pages, and the first two arbitators who registered support (for my topic ban) seem to have done so before the change from articles to pages.DMSBel (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks.DMSBel (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well as far as I am concerned, I only need notification on my own talk page, Penwhale, that you had clarified the issue here was enough for me.DMSBel (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{User article ban arb}} is taking up quite a bit of space. I think we can WP:AGF somewhat and assume that the five topic banned editors will all respect their ban; if not, surely one of us will remember. Would it be OK to remove the five instances of the template? NW (Talk) 15:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously guys? Wouldn't you wait until after there had been a violation of the sanctions before posting a badge of shame to the talk page of every abortion-related article to make sure that there are no violations of the sanctions? Even if you choose not to have any faith in the editors under sanction at least have some in the scores of admins watching these articles. - Haymaker (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's excessive to template abortion-related talkpages with the names of specific editors who are topic-banned. I can't recall that being done in other cases, although maybe it has been. Just do without the templates. MastCell Talk 04:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current procedure calls for posting of article bans to the talk pages last time I checked...

Abortion Arbcom definitely closed?

[edit]

Sorry to question this, is it definitely closed? I see several arbitors have yet to vote on the move to close, maybe I am not familiar with how these things are normally wrapped up?DMSBel (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I see now that not all have to vote.DMSBel (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penwhale/Archive11&oldid=1140207235"