User talk:Penepi

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 HC Slovan Bratislava season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Conference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013-14 HC Slovan Bratislava season

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of 2013-14 HC Slovan Bratislava season, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: 2013–14 KHL Medveščak season. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm Qed237. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 2013–14 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Unexplained reverting of a soccer goal. QED237 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Gareth Bale, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 KHL Medveščak Zagreb season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2014 UEFA Champions League Final. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2014 (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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2018 PDC World Darts Championship, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Mr X 21:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Penepi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Penepi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Slovak Cup moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2019–20 Slovak Cup, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Myenty Abena. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Taumata994 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2019–20 Slovak Cup (July 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Smartyllama was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2019–20 Slovak Cup instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2019–20 Slovak Cup and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2019–20 Slovak Cup, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Penepi! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Ramírez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jakub Sedláček (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at ŠK Slovan Bratislava, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on ŠK Slovan Bratislava. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Position by round removal

I have removed the position by round section due to the fact that the football WikiProject had a vote to see if the position by round is needed in a seasonal article and by a vote of 11-10, it was suggested to drop it from all seasonal articles going forward. HawkAussie (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 2018–19 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season

Hello, Penepi,

Thank you for creating 2018–19 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Many sections are empty. Please add information or restructure the article along with references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Amkgp}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Amkgp (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of association football matches played at Tehelné pole

The article List of association football matches played at Tehelné pole has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Excessive detail for an encyclopedia, WP:NOTSTATS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. --Pontificalibus 15:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season (July 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tvx1 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

T v x1 07:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season (July 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is in both draft space and article space. If the article is kept, the draft can be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the draft can be kept.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2020 (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. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Cloudz679. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. C 679 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2020 Formula One World Championship; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Slovan Braistlava season

Hey Penepi - instead of engaging in an edit war, please follow wikipedia guidelines. You can refer to the wikiproject football club season template here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. You are overlinking stadiums in the results by matchday section and it's a section that you will see is not even supposed to be these articles in the first place. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag templat

Let's talk about it! What do you think looks awful? DLManiac (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You left square brackets all over the Draw section; makes no sense and looks really bad. Keep the flags there, there is nothing wrong with this standard. It makes clear what nationality will be represented in the respective draw. – Penepi

It came from a different edit, which I've fixed. Flags are still there.DLManiac (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I've added a function that should allow accent marks so that for example, both {{PDCFlag|Karel Sedlacek}} and {{PDCFlag|Karel Sedláček}} properly display

Karel Sedláček . The accents are one of the reasons that I've created this function to begin with, so that names always get displayed properly even if they aren't entered properly. If you can think of more functionality worth adding, I'd love your feedback. DLManiac (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is nice. Good job. – Penepi

World Darts Championship

Hello,

Just a heads up. Instead of both of us keep edit warring on the page, and risk getting blocked from editing, let's discuss it here.

1). The Flag(s) for player 2 look better on the left side, rather than the right. I don't see the issue as to why they need to be on the right, but if you prefer them to be on the right, then fine, I shall leave it as it is.

2). Representation/Top Averages.

As for this section, they have always been in separate sections (i.e ==Representation== and ==Top Averages==).

It's much easier to have these in their own section, rather than have them at the bottom of the statistics section, as it is more easier to find, rather than scroll all the way to the bottom.

Let's not keep edit warring the page, and leave it as it is.

Hope this helps. L1amw90 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Well, I would suggest we can actually make some changes for the better and not to argue with "it used to be like this". Therefore:

1) This is solely a matter of personal, subjective preference. But I am okay with the flags being on the left.

2) Here I disagree. It is a statistical data and there is no need to create a separate section for that. What scrolling? It will be on the bottom of the page either way. – Penepi

Edit War @ WDC

Right, let's discuss this here. First off, I'm not aiming to be rude, and I don't want either of us to get banned so let's stop with the edit war.

I just don't understand why you have a problem with how it looks? Nobody else on the page seems to have any issues with it, so why you?.. As per previous years, the final has always been a separate section, so I don't get why this year has to be different from the rest? As I mentioned in my previous edits, it is much easier to have it as a separate section, rather than have it as one whole section, because to me, it looks confusing with it being mixed in with the main draw.

I apologise earlier for my comment in regards to telling you to "grow up, and get a life".

L1amw90 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L1amw90: Hello. Thanks for your message in the first place. I believe it is already irrelevant for this year but of course we can discuss it in order to avoid future disagreements.

I did not particularly have a problem with your suggested format. I just like mine more for several reasons and apparently no one has a problem with it either.

But such a discussion is not very fruitful. In essence, neither of us is wrong, it is purely about subjective opinion and I respect yours. It may be a pity that there is no voting on wikipedia on matters like these. But I disagree with the stance that we have to copy everything from previous years and nothing can be changed or improved. Of course, some structure must be preserved, but I don't think we have to copy everything headlessly. This way, the articles would never be improved. – Penepi 11:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2021 Premier League Darts into 2022 Premier League Darts. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2022 Premier League Darts

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 2022 Premier League Darts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://dartsnews.com/pdc/2020-premier-league-darts-tournament-centre-schedule-tv-coverage-prize-fund-and-format. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Premier League Darts moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2022 Premier League Darts, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 2600:6C4E:57F:541E:4D91:6C85:69D:C8BE (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ŠK Slovan Bratislava squad list

Template:ŠK Slovan Bratislava squad list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Darts Championship

Hey, could you have a look at the "schedule" section, as whoever edited it last has completely messed it up for no apparent reason...

Regards L1amw90 22:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at 2022 PDC World Darts Championship

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:2022 Premier League Darts

Hello, Penepi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2022 Premier League Darts, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2022 Premier League Darts

Hello, Penepi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2022 Premier League Darts".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2021–22 Slovak Cup (March 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2021–22 Slovak Cup and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2021–22 Slovak Cup, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Penepi (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2021–22 Slovak Cup (March 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2021–22 Slovak Cup instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2021–22 Slovak Cup and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2021–22 Slovak Cup, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 2022 Slovak Cup Final

Hello, Penepi,

Thank you for creating 2022 Slovak Cup Final.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more references in order to provide significant coverage for this article. See WP:SIGCOV
References that have scores, lists, order of merit and video do not pass as reliable sources for WP:NSPORT. (There have been changes to the notability guide for sports - you may wish to read WP:NSPORT ) To meet notability requirements, one more reference with significant coverage will suffice. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Penepi

Thank you for creating 2022 Slovak Cup Final.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The darts article

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit because it brought back some MOS:SEAOFBLUE, MOS:OVERLINK etc. violations and removed some instructionary templates at the beggining of the article. At the same time and unfortunately, the TV part got reverted as well; I don't think it's wrong to include it in the article as it's a common pratice on other sports pages. To reach consensus on this, you should create a discussion about it on the talk page, though. Would create one myself, but I'm not a common editor on darts pages and did just some clean-up work on the article due to it being on the main page. With best regards, Saksapoiss (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of ŠK Slovan Bratislava seasons

Hello, Penepi,

Thank you for creating List of ŠK Slovan Bratislava seasons.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add inline citations

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating caps and stats

Hello, I'm Robby.is.on. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the timestamp at Giorgi Chakvetadze for you here. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts and edit summaries

When you have a reason to revert, you should note it to let others know what you're thinking. Edit summaries like "Nope", "Go away", and "I do not agree" are not convincing, or helpful in making your case, so you're likely to just be reverted back, as just happed on that sequence. Sometimes there's just one small part of an edit that you disagree with, in which case a direct fix is much more constructive than a revert. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct with other editors

Having recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 PDC Calendar, I will warn you that your conduct, both when editing the article itself and at the AfD, were completely unacceptable. Firstly, you not only referred to other editors as "idiots", but did so in the mainspace article itself. You may absolutely never, for any reason, use a mainspace article to air your disagreements with any other editor, even if you did do so in a civil fashion, which of course you did not. At the AfD, you continued this type of behavior, with remarks such as I'm sorry if I touched your fragile ego, I hope you can deal with it. While I am not going to block you at this time since the matter is now resolved, please consider this a final warning that any further conduct of this nature is likely to lead to that result. There is certainly nothing wrong with disagreeing with another editor, but you are expected to do so civilly, avoid personal attacks, and to never again, for any reason whatsoever, express such a disagreement directly in a mainspace article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slovak First Football League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marek Ujlaky.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to draft space

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and creating the 2023–24 Slovak Cup article! However, this article has been moved back into the draft space so you and others can continue working on it. This topic may be notable, but at present, the article does not reference any sources, meaning its notability cannot be verified. For information about proving notability for a sports, see Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Take care, Significa liberdade (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

December 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, these edits: [1] and [2] (revdel'ed). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've extended the block length to indefinite. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be joking, right? Permanent ban for personal attacks, when I've never had a similar problem? A second chance doesn't mean anything to you, does it? Penepi (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite does not mean infinite. I won't be reviewing your appeals, but if you can show to an uninvolved administrator that you understand what you did wrong, and promise it won't happen again, they might unblock you. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for explanation. Of course, I will be more than happy to demonstrate learning from obvious mistakes and also accepting an adequate punishment. For example, the original one-week ban seemed to be quite justified. At the same time, I still dare to point out the actions of the user ItsKesha, who was not punished in any way, while the aforementioned Talk page is full of his personal attacks towards several other users. Penepi (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, first of all I am sorry for those attacks, will not repeat. On the other hand, the context is important here and 1 week is way too strict. Even more importantly, the "problematic" user in question - ItsKesha - has repeatedly made personal attacks towards several other users, especially on the Talk page of 2024 PDC World Darts Championship article, yet I don't see he has recevied any penalty whatsoever. In that case I am confident that any block for me is absolutely unauthorized and unfair. Also considering that I have not received any notification regarding my actions, and that I have never had any block or other problems before in the past. You've got to be joking, right? Permanent ban for personal attacks, when I've never had a similar problem? A second chance doesn't mean anything to you, does it?

Decline reason:

Nope. Your edits were so shockingly cruel that I am not willing to give a second chance - certainly not at any point in the near future. Your behaviour has no place on Wikipedia. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 December 2023 (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.

Penepi (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Shockingly cruel. Just don't be pathetic, because this is getting ridiculous. Of course, I recognize that objectively it meets the characteristics of personal attacks, but you portray it here as if I threatened someone or used extremist expressions. Absolutely nothing like that happened. Those were ordinary insults, for which I apologize. However, if this is the reason to permanently block an active user, then it is really ridiculous. What is the goal when someone makes a mistake? Not give him any chance to prove that he can learn from it? Very strange. And I point out once again to the same action of the aforementioned user, who did not receive any punishment at all. "You don't half talk some shite." "I did address the content of the post, you know, the one where you talked a load of shite about disruption" "How fragile is your faith in your own argument that you have to make such snide comments?" "Nobody cares about the opinion of you logged out losers" and many more...

So these attacks deserve ABSOLUTELY NO punishment, but my attacks were worthy of a permanent ban? Don't joke, really.

While I am fully aware of my mistake and apologize for it, and I can guarantee that it would never happen again, it is important to see the context. As presented on the Administrators' noticeboard, ItsKesha is an extremely problematic user who frequently and repeatedly edits comments in an arrogant and provocative manner. I simply allowed myself to be provoked. However, that does not mean that I am unteachable and should be permanently banned. Unlike the mentioned user, I have never had a similar problem. It is completely bizarre to me what decision you have reached so far. The logic of decisions like somewhere in a court in North Korea, with all due respect.

Decline reason:

Looking at the diffs above, an indefinite block seems reasonable. Your outrage at this is enough reason to decline your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Of course there is an 'outrage' as I feel the decision is completely disproportionate, wrong and biased. I apologized and I apologize repeatedly, saying that I can guarantee that similar actions will not be repeated. I don't know what more I can do. I've clearly pointed out context, which is important, but it obviously doesn't seem to matter here. I was attacking one particular user, because of his particular actions. That doesn't mean I'm some incorrigible outcast.

Decline reason:

Not only were those comments cruel to whom you directed them to, they are offensive to persons with the conditions you described, which undercuts the welcoming environment for all we strive for here. Given the cruelty of your comments that you term "ordinary insults"(which wouldn't merit less of a block even if they were), it is difficult to trust your guarantees and I think your only pathway forward is the standard offer. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I fully understand that it is now difficult for any other administrator to comply with my request, even if he agreed with me, after several of his colleagues have gradually rejected it, but let's try to be more practical: 1. I've never had any problems like this in the many years I've been on Wikipedia. 2. I didn't get any notification even within this dispute, I just got a permanent block. 3. I am not going to downplay my attacks, yes, they were personal attacks, but their nature is being exaggerated, or is not perceived in context at all. That's why I called them "ordinary insults". Nowhere did I use any F-word, N-word, any threats or anything like that. 4. Frustrated by the insidious actions of the individual in question, I insulted him exclusively. Writing that he behaves like a psychopath is supposed to be an insult to who else - psychopaths? In that case, fine. Is the insult calling him "autistic" supposed to be an insult to autistic people? If it's perceived that way, I'm very sorry, because it was never my intention. It was directed exclusively at a specific editor. 5. However, I am most surprised by the absolute inadequacy in relation to the user ItsKesha. I feel as if he himself makes decisions from the position of administrator. He had historically repeated problems with the rules of decent discussion. Even now he insulted others repeatedly and even more frequently than I insulted him. The result is no penalty, while for me an indefinite ban? I really don't feel that the words "you're acting like a psychopath" are (that much) worse than REPEATEDLY telling someone that they write "shite" or that they are a "loser" and MANY MORE. 6. Of course, as I have already written repeatedly, I still regret it. Since I'm a decent adn sensible person, I know how to learn and make sure that something like this never happens again. After all, such a sequence seems logical to me - was my act against the rules in a serious way? OK, you didn't realize it, so you will get a permanent ban if you do it ever again, without any compromise. But not immediately punishing me with a long-term ban for the first offense. 7. standard offer is irrelevant to me from a practical point of view, mainly because of the nature of the article, which I spend the vast majority of my time on wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You clearly aren't recognising the seriousness here. Your insults were far worse than if you had simply used the f-word (assuming that's the more common usage of the f-word). Had you instead immediately realised how serious your grossly offensive personal attacks were, we'd be in a different situation now. But I see no path forward for you to be unblocked in the near future. Yamla (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2023 (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.

Note there was an edit conflict. Penepi subsequently modified their unblock request to include an 8th section: "8. Obviously, I'm not asking you to cancel the penalty as such. To show that I really am aware of my mistake and it's not just empty words, I'm prepared to serve some appropriate punishment and then continue editing in a decent manner. For instance, the original 1-week ban quite well took into account the fact that the 'most problematic' article ends (or the given event ends) within the next week." My decline is based on the previous version. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I think the problem here is perhaps a somewhat unfortunate form of expression on my part as a non-native English speaker. And this may also partly relate to the perception of given insults. As I already wrote, I am of course aware of the full seriousness of my insults. I tried to explain that they were by no means intended in the way they probably seem to be - God forbid on some group of people and the like. Just to clarify, in my language the reference to autism in spoken language is exclusively synonymous with someone acting like a weirdo. It has absolutely nothing to do with any insult to a specific group of people. The fact that I 'highlighted' insults like the F-/N-word only means that I would never use them, not that I somehow trivialize my own insults or do not recognise their seriousness.

Decline reason:

If I were to give a full account of all the ways in which this unblock request is disingenuous and unacceptable, I would be here for quite some time. Instead, I will restrict myself to the following remarks. * Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that you really do come from a society where everyone, not just louts from the gutter, accepts calling people "autistic" as an insult as a friendly bit of banter. Are you also asking us to believe that they would also take it in the same friendly spirit if the word were not just used in isolation, but incorporated in a whole rant, addressing the person as "mentally stunted", and so on? And are you asking us to believe, when we have read the whole of the attack you wrote, that it was written in a spirit of friendly banter? Even if we give the benefit of the doubt about the use of that one word, the context in which you used it was not "banter": it was a vitriolic attack, and you know it. * You tell us that calling someone autistic to you means describing them as "acting like a weirdo", and you say that not as a confession of guilt but as a defence of your use of the word???? Seriously???? So you think describing people whose mental working is outside the usual range as "weirdoes" is absolutely fine? I can assure you it isn't. I am one of the people you refer to, and I have never found it amusing, entertaining, or "banter" when people have addressed me in such contemptuous terms. * You have given up on ranting and shouting about everyone involved as a way of trying to get unblocked, and shifted to trying to say things which sound more conciliatory, but the underlying fact is that you are still as fixed as you ever were on the notion that you had every right to post an extended personal attack, with the intention of being offensive to the person in question. JBW (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2023 (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.

How in the world do you think that using autistic as an insult, but just towards one editor, is not an insult towards autistic people? I'm amazed that your talk page access hasn't been revoked at this point. --Onorem (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably just delete your offensive comment, but whatever -- I already stated in my latest comment that in my mother tongue using autistic is not deragotary in any way, it is more of a banter which means someone is acting like an oddball.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Penepi (talk • contribs)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the request open so that an uninvolved admin may decline it, but I think you've doubled down enough on your insults. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #82973

is open, FWIW. @Isabelle Belato: seeking feedback from blocking admin.

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is closed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away this past day due to New Year celebrations. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 17:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a Joe Job, but I'm pretty sure that BRZ8 is a sock of Penepi. Harassing editors in the same AFD but not voting, pretty DUCKish behavior, enough that I blocked BRZ8. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email. It is doubtful you have been deliberately ignored. There are an extremely limited number of volunteers to review requests. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also received an email. Admins: see UTRS appeal #90559. Penepi: I've replied to your appeal. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #90559

Per discussion with blocking admin and discussion with Dennis Brown, I am accepting this appeal because you have shown that you understand why you have been blocked. Stick to constructive contributions and don't ever make personal attacks again. Good luck. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I can promise to behave and follow the rules. Penepi (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]