User talk:Penwhale/Archive12

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

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Penwhale,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Penwhale. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21![edit]

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
  • Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227).
  • Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street.
  • Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)

The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!

Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool[edit]

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Penwhale. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki[edit]

Were you contacted by TrevelyanL85A2 off-wiki with respect to the ongoing arbitration request? Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The period is actually too long & unsudden image change without any discussion[edit]

Mitt Romney is a prominent politician and the fixed period that you set down on this page is too long and a lot can happen for the next three days. Users should be warned instead and reprimanded instead of locking a very prominent page. It's akin to locking the Barack Obama page leaving no one to edit it.

Another thing is a user made a big change which is the unflattering image before the lock which is Skidmore #3 instead of the agreed Skidmore #6 which has been used for months. The change is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney&diff=502717588&oldid=502713163 which uses the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg instead of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg If the unlock does not happen, I request that you edit the page to change it to #6 in favor of the community's preferred image instead of that user's preferred image. ViriiK (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find evidence that skidmore #6 was preferred (the only discussion I saw did not reference it). If you can provide me with a link to that discussion, I will be glad to change it. Added: The issue is that there are too many parties that would need to be warned, and the history of that article reads more like a dispute rather than disruption. As we try not to block punitively, we protect and require editors to discuss, instead. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 10:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sucks to have the bio of a presidential candidate protected, but I can understand why you did it. Incidentally, this is exactly why I complained about the lack of administrative response at WP:AN3 - when edit-warring doesn't get nipped in the bud and people get away with it, then it tends to escalate into an arms race and articles end up locked, which punishes everybody. I still think timely administrative intervention could have nipped this in the bud, but maybe I'm just grouchy. MastCell Talk 18:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

The material shouldn't be the same to count it as revert.From WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions."--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What not clear he reverted this edit [1].And most of the reports in WP:3RR are part of the content dispute.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful: (1) I don't see him reverting that edit (the stuff that you removed was not added back), and (2) at 3RR we look at all sides of the reverts. Either way, your diffs are not convincing. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) [2] ,(2) fine by me I have discussed thoroughly with this user on article talk page.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I count 3, because this one is not a revert. Unless you can show me evidence that that edit reverted something? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He reverted this edit [3].Words starting with "Dhimmitude refers to discrimination against or treating... "--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user made another revert [4]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is utter nonsense...YOU are edit warring against consensus. you removed sourced content. my revert is totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of your *disruptive* edit.) you are now being *disruptive* because your misrepresentation of sources, your edit warring allegations ended in total failure. deliberately making disruptive edits so that you get reverted won't get me banned... it will get you banned for gaming the system.-- altetendekrabbe  10:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, BOTH of you have reverted more than 3 times. STOP, AND DISCUSS, before blocks are applied. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 10:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see his latest edits on the noticeboard here, [5]. he is adding unrelated edits to the diffs. this is extremely serious disruptive behavior.-- altetendekrabbe  10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please prove you accusation or strike it I only made two edits to the article(counting consectuve edit as one per WP:3RR) in the last two days--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have blocked altetendekrabbe based on the additional revert. Still reviewing other editors. Kuru (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged; I do believe that there is fault on both sides here, though. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, but I don't see enough to entertain extreme edit warring by one party. Other methods have been tried; page protection, discussions, etc. If there's a general sanction that you feel can resolve the issue less unilaterally, then please feel free to reverse any action I've taken without consultation (I'm going to be offline for then next six hours or so). Kuru (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. We can talk about it later. Won't act on this unless situation changes. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 12:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock Me[edit]

This is Colton Cosmic. Dear Penwhale, I am asking that you look over and unblock my account. I wanted to put this on the administrator's noticeboard but it won't accept IP edits. I decided to post it on three admins' talkpages instead. I picked you three for no reason other than I noticed you had made recent edits. Colton Cosmic.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.199.240 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Colton Cosmic. Bah Penwhale, your fellow admin Timotheus Canens is on me like white on rice. He even reverted my comment at my own talkpage (and then locked the page) but you can view my comment here [7]. I hope you read my comment. The short version of this affair is that TC banned me for WP:SOCK but I say I didn't do it. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.28.75 (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent block of me - did you really intend to do this?[edit]

Hi, Penwhale;

You recently blocked me from editing Sandra Fluke, by acceding to Hoary's request for page protection. While there have been some new IP SPAs crop up, their activities have been short and have not occurred in that last week. There is essentially one IP editor making extensive contributions, and that is me. I would ask if you have considered the actual practical effect of this block, particularly since you followed it with the helpful comment, "I would like to see more discussion taking place on the talk page." The complaint I made about Hoary's request was that Casprings, which is virtually a Sandra Fluke SPA was repetetively inserting material that had major WP:RS issues, without addressing the questions extensively raised by myself and others on Talk, nor abiding by consensus. If you meant to block me, even though no allegation of edit warring was made against me, I would appreciate and be open to an explanation, if not, would you consider reversing this block; its effect is to make it less likely that Casprings will in the future acknowledge issues on Talk.

PS; the ANI was filed as consensus was achieved, and so also circumvented the Talk discussion. If really pushed after twice establishing WP:RS/WP:BLP consensus and then twice getting User consensus for removal, probably would have taken it to the WP:RS board. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't block you; the page protection was intended because I'm not seeing enough discussion. Ergo, protection forces editors to compromise so there will be less edit warring. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user shrike[edit]

i am trying to stay away from shrike... but see how is after me like a hound, [8]. he should also try to de-escalate rather than follow me around. i am pretty sure he will begin an edit war pretty soon (that is his modus operandi). the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore. could you please ask him to stop stalking me?-- altetendekrabbe  18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request[edit]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps

I've activated the account. Sorry for the long (almost 3 week) delay.--v/r - TP 13:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penwhale[edit]

The Bushranger closed this so that can be deleted per that. Arcandam (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Why does your editnotice say "Please pay attetion to this message" (emphasis mine)? Is it a typo or intentional?[reply]

  • It certainly did grab my attention, so in a way it worked really well (for pedantic idiots like myself). Arcandam (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notification[edit]

As you participated in the AE thread which led to this request, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rue Cardinale (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newco Rangers[edit]

Hi Penwhale - you put page protection on the Newco Rangers article that was timed to expire at the same time as the Rangers FC article. Since then protection on the Rangers FC article has been extended to "(expires 22:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC))". Could I ask that you extend the protection on the Newco Rangers article to coincide with the expiry time at the Rangers FC article. It makes sense that both articles are protected until consensus is achieved. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newco rangers extenstion again sorry[edit]

Hiya,

Can you extend the protection to this article by another week, we have now finally moved forward and got agreement on one point, but we are still not at a point where we have a article ready to go. We are working on getting a neutral non bias article ready in the sandbox but we are still some way off from getting a consensus on it. Could you also extend the Rangers F.C. article as well as these two are interlinked and edit warring will begin as soon as protection is lifted because there is still no consensus. I will request the admin who protected it extend it as well just rather get both extended it might be best looking at 2 weeks as it really taking time to get this dispute resolved but 1 week gives us more time, by us i mean my self and User:Fishiehelper2 as we are on the other side of the argument to each other but we are working to get one article that will combine both the above but we are meeting with opposition so it is hard work to get the consensusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will be traveling, so I unfortunately cannot help you. However, I will be posting at Phantomsteve (protecting admin at Rangers F.C) asking him to protect both if he deems it necessary. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 12:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please think about this[edit]

Hello, good sir. I'd like to point something out to you concerning your handling of an e-w case this morning. I am not challenging the wisdom of your decision, but I do have a constructive criticism.

You elected to decline the complaint, and I see where not singling out one individual, when several were in the wrong, was the fairest decision possible. (That said, I think there may have been some deficiency in the process used to arrive at that decision, but that is only guesswork, it's not my business, and if the final outcome was just, the rest is moot.)

BUT, you were presented with an opportunity - a fairly obvious one - to address one of the root causes, and I think it unconscionable that you kept silent when just a few words of guidance was clearly in order. There is no question that you saw this (diff), but did you grasp the implications? The user is convinced that he did nothing wrong. Indeed, he thinks his actions were fully justified. As an admin, by not using the "teachable moment" to good advantage, you have likely reinforced that thinking. Belchfire-TALK 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. Allow me to clarify. I'm not making an issue out of the nature of his comment. What I wanted you to see is that he made that comment to illustrate that he views himself as innocent of edit-warring. Please observe this back-and-forth exchange between the two users, re-formatted slightly for improved clarity:

  1. Woa cowboy. "Both" of you? I wasn't edit warring. – Lionel (talk) 12:01 am, Today (UTC−7)
  2. Avanu, I have no interest in edit-warring. I have brought multiple articles to Dispute Resolution in order to resolve these issues. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:03 am, Today (UTC−7)
  3. It's great that you went to DRN. However that is not a license to edit war. – Lionel (talk) 12:05 am, Today (UTC−7)
  4. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:07 am, Today (UTC−7)
  5. (Intervening comments omitted)
  6. Arc's right. It wasn't an ad hominem, it was a counter-example of begging the question. The point is that, in order to stop, you must first start. That should be obvious. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 7:21 am, Today (UTC−7)

He is stating rhetorically that Lionel's allegation is false, i.e., he wasn't edit warring. But I'm pretty sure that isn't the reason you let him off the hook. My concern is that he not be allowed to believe that, or it encourages future conflict. So I'm asking you to counsel him on his behavior, to help promote harmony and collaboration. As far as I can see, he wasn't really warned in any meaningful way by someone in authority. As I pointed out earlier, this is a missed opportunity. Belchfire-TALK 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see what you're saying, although I thought the chain of thought was addressed at ANI too (that counter-example pointing out the possible fallacies that he would have faced responding either way). In any case, I'm pretty sure that my "as if restrictions were performed as is I'd imagine it'd be on both sides" should be taken as a warning, even though it didn't sound serious enough. Facepalm Facepalm on my part. -_- - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to let the dead horse rot, but if you want to know what I'm thinking, please don't try to read my mind, just ask me. As I tried to point out to Lionel near the end, I am under no illusion that I have a "license to edit war" or generally have any more right to revert an article than anyone else does. I've worked hard to avoid edit wars, engaging in discussions, dispute resolution and simply taking breaks to let things calm down. Despite this, there are still stretches of time when there are many edits, and I can see how these might look like intentional edit-warring. Nonetheless, my intention is quite the opposite and I am always open to constructive advice[9] on how to do better. Thanks for keeping a calm head. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a question[edit]

We've talked before where we worked over the issue of the Mitt Romney main picture which I thank you for fixing. I've had a user deploy a false 3RR warning against me which he's using it under the guise of "edit-warring" although I reverted once over that particular subject (twice if you count multiple subjects in the last 24 hours). I already gave my reasons in the edit summary and concluded it there. What can I do about false warnings? I feel this is a case of WP:HOUND. You can see here [10] ViriiK (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like Still said, edit summary is not a replacement for talk page discussion thread. As I have not seen much discussion (mostly back and forth reverts), I figured a full protection at that article temporarily may assist in solving disputes. I protected it for 4 days. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should have been patient in waiting for a response then instead of going straight to 3RR warning. I don't care about the page protection since another user requested protecting the page. My issue is that in my edit summaries and his contribution, he was doing it to harass me and in order to manipulate it so that he could create a history that supposedly I am a proliferant edit-warrer see: [11]. He just registered no more than a month ago and now he's suddenly an expert when I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for years. He throws so many accusations of edit-warring around it's not even funny anymore when he has engaged and has been legitimately 3RR warned at least 3 times. ViriiK (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penwhale, just so you know, there has been beaucoup discussion at DRN (x2). That's the major reason why you see less discussion than you should at the article's Talk page. ViriiK and Still have both been involved. Incidentally, I requested full PP for the article about, oh, 30 minutes ago. It appears you didn't see that request and acted on your own, but either way things will get to cool off, which is what was needed. If you are by chance considering any follow-up action, I urge you to look carefully at the DRN discussions first, and perhaps consult with the volunteer/moderators. Thanks for the bucket of cold water, it was needed. Regards. Belchfire-TALK 06:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the DRN discussion was about "substance abuse", and I've been careful to keep that term in, regardless of my misgivings. The edit war comes from Viriik's refusal to allow any mention of Love Won Out, which Focus on the Family founded. There was some discussion, but Viriik has not been part of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this is becoming a clear case of WP:HOUND since he's keeping a close eye on my contribution history. I did not appreciate it when he threw around the edit-warring accusation and would like an apology which he will naturally refuse to do so especially when he's demanded apologies from other users and myself. I simply agreed with Lionet's edit and reasoning for doing so and left it in the edit summary. That does not warrant the 3RR warning he clearly failed to read the rules per here WP:3RR. ViriiK (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ViriiK: You don't need to register to edit - and his username pretty much said what was his IP. Veterancy doesn't really matter regards to normal editing.
  • @Belchfire: I don't like to block unless I think it's obvious, and generally I would look at all parties involved on said article. As there's DRN on-going, it's not appropriate to block. Thus, protection. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than not needing to register to edit, my point was what gives a user the right to falsely warn others? I was at 1RR on that specific subject and made a good judgment which I believed personally it was WP:UNDUE and agreed with Lionet's change. The fact that he admits in the link that he wants to give me a black mark on my record in the hopes of demonstrating that I'm supposedly a proliferate edit-warrer when I am not is very worrisome. ViriiK (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not true. I was just pointing out that deleting my notice wasn't going to get you anywhere; it just made you look unrepentant. As for a black mark, do you mean like this?
Look, let's cut the banter and accusations: this is ultimately a content dispute. You're going to need to go to the Talk page and persuasively explain why we should think it's undue.Good luck with that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If people do not support Still's view, then there's nothing to worry about. User conduct, in this case, would belong at ANI. (And false warning discussions should go there, indeed) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DRNs are both closed. The results of the first one have not been honored.[12] more here [13] This stopped being about the article some time ago. It's now about saving face. I appreciate your restraint and I'm not lobbying to have anybody blocked. As I mentioned earlier, I see that counseling is needed. You seem to be saying that ANI is the way to get that done, so I'll take it under advisement. Belchfire-TALK 07:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the DRN's have been honored. Please stick to the facts. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP[edit]

You have a request at RFPP regarding the Ye Shiwen article. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 23:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach[edit]

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[edit]

While I have an understandably low opinion of Wikipedia administrators, given recent events, I do want to say that you were fair and reasonable. Thanks for not being like them, and goodbye. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese translation[edit]

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Chinese to English translators and wondered if you could translate some of the stub articles for the King of Eastern Zhou at Template:Kings of Zhou? Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi Penwhale. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of prestige classes[edit]

The article List of prestige classes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Extremely unlikely that a significant number of the entries in this list will have sourcing from a reliable, independent source.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old notifications?[edit]

I noticed that some pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education still carry a warning about Pete K. It looks like he hasn't made an edit since 2007, so is it OK if we take them down? I figure if for some reason he does show back up someone will probably remember the arbcom case. a13ean (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late on this but it's now done, I'll hide the rest when I come across them. a13ean (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Morris infobox question[edit]

There is currently a discussion going on here which you may be interested in. AutomaticStrikeout 21:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you admonish Hersfold?[edit]

Why don't you behave honorably? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

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

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1[edit]

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, 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 at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

banned user returns[edit]

It appears that a banned user has returned to the Talk:Waldorf education pages under an IP address, 76.170.168.122. See User contributions. Is there any recourse? You originally posted the banning notice at the top of the talk page. hgilbert (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penwhale/Archive12&oldid=1143711256"