User talk:Thepenguin9/Archives/2020/March

Archives (index)

2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Response to Special:Diff/943527034/943527408

I never claimed that Wikipedia articles are reliable sources. However, the subject of a Wikipedia article has to pass the stringent notability test. If they do that (and an article exists, i.e. blue link), then if they are obviously relevant to the list in question they are by extension noteworthy. Right? What is your verifiable proof that the products you readded to the list are noteworthy by Wikipedia's definition? If no one can verify the noteworthiness of an item in the list, then what is stopping anyone from adding anything (i.e. spam)? 45.83.220.164 (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe that the content of the list does not require citation though I would like to ask MrOllie if they think the nature of the list itself lends to whether the software is notable enough to be in the list, but not have its own article, which is possible here Thepenguin9 (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that a Wikipedia article is required for an item to be noteworthy. My question is this: Without any reliable secondary or tertiary source, and no Wikipedia article (which means notability test passed), then how do you determine verifiable noteworthiness? What is the verifiable difference between a noteworthy item and spam? 45.83.220.164 (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the notability guideline, lists are exempt from the same notability requirements, and that you can prune lists if you believe they are too large. I believe that the omitted items are able to stay, though I've opened a discussion on Talk:List of Python software to discuss this further Thepenguin9 (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian jackson

Please change the information you have regarding my relative it is Incorrect, Sarahconifers1 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise Sarahconifers1, but nobody owns anything on Wikipedia. If you continue to assume ownership I will have to report you. Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine I don’t mind if that’s what you want to do ! report me I am only stating the truth and the correct information as the information on here is incorrect and misleading and I don’t understand what you mean when you say I assume ownership I’m confused 🤷‍♀️ Sarahconifers1 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahconifers1 You stated in your edit summary that people who wished to change the article had to contact you, and you also stated that your only goal on Wikipedia is to change what you deem to be incorrect information on a relative's article. Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your a very strange person ! Sarahconifers1 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd beg to differ Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding INRAE

Hi, I indeed declared a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia page of INRAE, as I work for the institution. However, I was just reporting a translation of the French Wikipedia page. The translation was not 100% complete, I just reported the main text, because it will take me some time to translate everything properly.

Also, your comment about merging (that I guess was referring to the merge between INRA and IRSTEA) is not applicable here, as the Wikipedia pages of the two former institutes should still exist.

Finally, yes, an admin has deleted my draft...while I was editing it to correct the issues..."speedy deletion" is ok, but that's a little bit too fast for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto.tonda (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try to resolve mistakes on Wikipedia

Why do you not want the correct spelling and information on Wikipedia Sarahconifers1 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I much like anybody wants Wikipedia to be correctly spelled and accurate. However if there is an article I have a Conflict of Interest with, I much like any other user would properly declare this conflict, and properly suggest edits on talk pages Thepenguin9 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect Wikipedia to do its upmost best to make sure the information is correct and the spelling is correct or what is the point in having it at all if it’s misleading and wrong. If it can not or won’t be put correct I guess that is the way it will have to be! such a shame misleading information has to be printed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahconifers1 (talk • contribs)

Tocilizumab

Sorry, what was the problem with my revert? Any objections to moving this fringe use further down (i.e. the Research section), not above RA and all other well-established uses? Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I botched the revert and only undone 1 edit when I wanted to revert 3 ~~but i don't have rollback yet~~ so I very quickly roll-backed to the intended version. Your rollback was fine but it kept the problems I thought I had undone Thepenguin9 (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think it's fine now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

???

When you cite research studies, you should make sure to cite a comprehensive list, not just those in favor of your opinion. If you cannot get a comprehensive opinion, the information should not be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.46 (talk • contribs)

Pardon? Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the voter ID page. Apparently you are only citing research whose conclusions are against it. People would like to see comprehensive opinions about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.46 (talk • contribs)

I am reverting your edits because you are removing sourced content. If you wish to present both sides, please add information backed by reliable sources

Please also sign your comment with 4 tildes ~~~~Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anon can't talkpage 1

In re:

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Requirements engineering, you may be blocked from editing. Unfortunately many disagree with the views as presented on Wikipedia. This, however, does not give you licence to censor it Thepenguin9 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The criticism section is just shy of vandalism. No idea how it got there. It is the same as going to an article about antibiotics, finding one crank who disbelieves in the effectiveness of antibiotics and then adding a criticism section that says "there is no evidence that antibiotics are effective" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:C401:A310:69DD:AF57:3C20:2D85 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:547:C401:A310:69DD:AF57:3C20:2D85 Problem 1: one scholarly reference has two authors.

Problem 2: It is a credible source from credible authors. Do not let bias into your edits. Thepenguin9 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TAI Anka

Just to let you know I undid your one of your huggle reversions. You reverted a user who was removing information added by a sockpuppet. Also the only source used was promotional / not independent. I presumed that you reverted the edit based only on the info on the huggle interface (i.e. a new user reverting a change). Your reversion was here [1]. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aye I saw the diffs and it looked like a disagreement on validity. I quickly checked the reference and ruled in favor of the paragraph staying. Huggle is nice but could do with some updates (separate queue for edits made to my own?) but if it was added by a sock then I have no qualms with the reversion! Thepenguin9 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User can't talkpage 1

I’m changing it so it’s correct, what have I done wrong Derbyboy2890 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are unconstructive, meaning they take more away from the article than they contribute. Plus you have indicated that you believe an event was a french victory to justify edits. Thepenguin9 (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please example what i have done wrong Derbyboy2890 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For one, please check this guide on how to use a talkpage. Second, if you go through your recent contributions, they show a bias towards the level of victory, and undoing edits that have a reason (the result of a war can be complex and unable to be easily summarised, as per this edit [2] Thepenguin9 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anon can't talkpage 2

If you continue to use your bias on wiki, penguin, your personal information will be released and I hope it puts you in danger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.215.171 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice threat, I hear blocks are lovely this time of year. Thepenguin9 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're a lying MAGAt and your life is about to change. Your time of biased editing is about to end — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B06B:AFE6:0:58:2A3A:4C01 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you act like I care, magat, what's going to be funnier is what's about to come your way, you lying, filthy MAGAt. Keep thinking you're protected by the other magats. Luk3, WIDR and you are about to experience some fun stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B06B:AFE6:0:58:2A3A:4C01 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your blocked worked well...I took information directly on the Wikipedia page for Celebrity rehab and that hurt your little MAGATs feelings, so you try to hide the truth to protect Dr. Drew, who literally got 5 celebrities in 2 years killed due to his fake therapy...I hope you join them, sad, pathetic, discourse rigging MAGAT liars...People are going to eventually come for you and your little MAGAt loser buddy LUK3, your joke of laughing at a ban cracks me up, little guy, still here, will you be in a month? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B000:2153:213E:1D60:E62E:1644 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm humoured that you think I support Trump Thepenguin9 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

I believe you got the wrong person. I reverted a change on the page Jessel that was spam. please give it another look. the user I reverted wrote "is a name of people who are nice but silly. People who have Beef with people named Leonardo Navarro." not sure how reverting that is non constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaledish (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is very possible the program I was using decided to show your edit as opposed to the vandalism and opted to revert yours. I cannot seem to find a rollback in the logs though Thepenguin9 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wtf

um why tf did you change my edit Professarroocky (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not vandalise my talk page
Your edit was reverted as it did not contribute positively towards wikipedia

If you continue to edit disruptively you will be blocked Thepenguin9 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example for you. He has NOT vandalized your talk page. If you disagree, just read the already linked vandalism policy and explain how this edit is vandalism in terms of policy. It is not in any way determined by whether it is an improvement, meets WP:CIVIL, was poorly executed etc. Wikipedia is made up of a very widely varying backgrounds. Asking you why the fuck you did something is not now, never has been and never will be vandalism no matter how you feel about his vocabulary. If you insist on ignoring AGF, I can very easily get an administrator to reinforce my statements. That shouldn't have to happen. AGF isn't optional. And administrators don't have any more authority to tell you something you are doing is improper than I do. They just have the means to FORCE you into compliance if it becomes necessary. It shouldn't be needed. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoğlu

When you revert an edit, please remain in your sphere of knowledge. In French, 6^th is VI^ème, or 6^ème, never VI^me. --217.136.38.137 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giving me a warning

Why did you did dat Wezy f baby 89 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking a Foundation Course in the English Language. Thepenguin9 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why so im not allowed to express my beliefs Wezy f baby 89 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are, just not on Wikipedia. Thepenguin9 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Special:Diff/944960719

Hey, you Reverted this edit, the user that made the edit now asked at Help Desk § Corrections to my Wikipedia Bio why they were unable to edit the page (at least that's how I interpret the request). Though the edit was not entirely good, I'm not sure, why it was reverted in whole. Maybe you explain it to the user at the Help Desk. --Info-Screen::Talk 00:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be the subject of the Article, and as such I was reverting based on the poor spelling and grammar, as well as the fact they were going against the CoI policy. Thepenguin9 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkerboard Inn

Did not mean any intrusion. The titled article "checkerboard inn" is linked to an unofficial facebook page which in turn conflicts with my customer use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3007:2D9A:0:7D11:BBFA:4A30:3554 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you own or are affiliated with the article then you cannot edit it yourself and must follow the guidelines here. Additionally, the name as according to the register is The "Checkerboard Inn" and so as far as I am aware, the name must stay as such. Thepenguin9 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

93.137.0.201 (talk · contribs)

Now this IP vandalizes talk pages. Just ban this IP already. As for me, I will never do 3RR again. Please mind that I just stood against a bully who idolizes Marko Šimić very much. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now this IP calls you crazy vandal as well. Flix11 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.instagram.com/p/B9l4YCIjtdA/?igshid=1san0hj71ae0 Open this...i just defend truth...flix you hear me again sure, disgrace of wiki

@93.137.0.201: Then upload that by yourself. Why are you "forcing" us to upload your demand? Flix11 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its your profession i dont know!!! stop promoting lies monster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk • contribs)

Do NOT call the IP "it"

Do NOT call the IP "croat"

I have no power to ban him. Thepenguin9 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OPEN LINK DUDE...STOP REVERTING LIES!!!!

No longer. Flix11 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Waring Persija Jakarta

Hey, I see you try to defend Wikipedia with your actions, but too me it seems like this [3] evolved into an edit war. The IP Editor definitely does something wrong here, but I think we should WP:AGF and do dispute resolution, by talking to the editor, instead of just reverting in circles, even if that means that the worse version of the page is online for a longer time. Thanks for your work improving Wikipedia. --Info-Screen::Talk 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey info, unfortunately as you can see, the IP editor refuses to listen to reason, and AGF only gets us so far. I've requested protection, and even made an addendum to the AIV. But in the absence of an admin, I'm opting to ignore all rules and let my actions be judged by those on high, especially when I throw my hat into the adminship ring. Thepenguin9 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You get banned for all tnx god!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.instagram.com/p/B9l4YCIjtdA/?igshid=1san0hj71ae0 FIRST WHO OPENS AND UPLOADS PROFILE PHOTO AS LOGO DID THE "HARD" JOB...THEY MUST BE ASHAMED TO USE WIKI NICKNAMES AND REVERTING WRONG UPDATES!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That logo is the same. Congratulations for contradicting yourself. Thepenguin9 (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE BLIND SURELY...STAR ON TOP FOR 2018 TITLE...GET LOST SICK LIAR!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the other Fotball Clubs also don't have their Stars in the Logo displayed on Wikipedia, and by not displaying any Logo you don't make the Article better, by removing the Logo Altogether. --Info-Screen::Talk 17:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

logo is whats on jersey and star is there!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persija_Jakarta WHAT NOW CRAZY VANDALS ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you paid attention to your talk page, a discussion is now taking place to reach consensus on what to do with the logo. If you can find a SVG of the new logo, then I'll happily change it. But for now, a PNG won't cut it when we have a much better quality (albeit) old one. Thepenguin9 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/id/9/94/Persija_Jakarta_logo.png Check carefully, few lines and colours different, its not only star but fake logo confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.19.10 (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trustpilot reverted edit

Hello sir, you have reverted my edit on the article (Special:Diff/945069576/945069687). I removed this claim Despite Trustpilot's claims of "no censoring", low ranking reviews are often removed (described by Trustpilot as the review being "taken offline") by the Trustpilot compliance Team where companies make allegations that the reviews breach Trustpilot's rules - even where this is demonstrably not the case. because neither of the sources provided back this, It seems to be biased and the original editor probably based this claim on original research, which is why is not within the Wikipedia guidelines. I kindly ask, why did you revert my edits? JavTehran (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I think Trustpilot article needs clean up it, has many claims poorly sourced or not at all. The one that I removed its clearly one of them and I probably biased, I don't think it has neutral tone and if It could be properly sourced it should be moved to the criticism section. Can we address this issue? I don't want to start an edit war or anything, I just think the article needs clean up and dont want my edits to be reverted without any explanation. JavTehran (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truth

You shouldnt keep amending Omar Bogle to paint him in a complete positive light .Fact is he is a ok lower league player at best.He isnt Messi. Hence have you seen him play? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky17890 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't care less for footie

I couldn't care less for an unsourced opinion Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baguadao

Baguadao. I not understand. this voice is terrible. It is possible that it cannot be changed. It questions any credibility of an encyclopedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.118.205 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Isaac Hager revert

Would you mind holding off a bit on this: I was just about to add something that helps notability. thanks--108.41.41.101 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Purser

I need the sections I am not comfortable with taken down. They are of too personal a nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heather.Purser (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tetbury best places to dine

Is there a particular reason you reverted my removal of the "Best places to dine" section on the Tetbury page, which is a clear violation of WP:PROMOTION? 78.148.2.98 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was merely an accident. I looked over the difference and it looked like a list, I didn't look at the header sadly and that's the crucial clue that would've stopped me reverting you. Thepenguin9 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hag u hag

Hag u Hag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.78.47 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YOU CANT CONTROL OUR WHITE HATS , F.. HAC K ER ILL FIND YOU

who are you ? a troll ? you dont have any right to chage anything i do . If you changed ill chacnge it many times mrore . stupid troll . and if you block my account ill create many more . you cant control our wihte hats . ill find you ! believe me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poskaer (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Can you please take a closer look at your revert? Trying to have a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.195.170 (talk)

No. The discussion was closed and archived. You broke the page trying to "calm the bot" Thepenguin9 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're REFUSING my request that you please take a closer look at your revert? That's kind of a .... move. True. It looks like an edit conflict did get mishandled by the system, breaking the page. You're telling me I can't reopen the discussion? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm refusing your request because I did a double take when I originally saw it, looked at the difference, and reverted. If you want to re-open a discussion, then open a new one instead of trying to fight an automated process Thepenguin9 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago edit

Hello, as I stated in my most recent edit summary on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad and Tobago are in North America, not South America. 68.148.230.9 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brockton, Massachusetts

Verifiability (WP:V) isn't the only inclusion criteria. Article content is decided by consensus. You're changes clearly do not have consensus as multiple editors have reverted it. Further, VANDALISM has a definition. You've falsely accused multiple editors of it. Stop. You are also edit warring. In short, the only editor there who is doing anything wrong is you. You're new, so if you stop, they'll be no problem. Wikipedia is not exactly intuitive. There's a lot to learn in order to contribute here successfully. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John from Idegon, are you referring to Brockton, Massachusetts? The edit I reverted there did not seem to contribute much to the wider article, and the referenced book did not provide much help wither in establishing the claim.

I am also going to remove the welcome and teahouse due to my acknowledgement Thepenguin9 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions may vary on content suitability, but once a particular edit has been reverted, it cannot be replaced without establishing a consensus for its utility in the article. The important part of my message above you've not acknowledged in any way. So consider yourself warned - any further instances of you committing WP:NPA violations by calling good faith edits vandalism will result in you getting pulled up at a noticeboard. Is that clear enough for you? I've seen it twice in your edit summaries on articles I watch, logically you are doing on articles I don't watch. So consider this a final warning. John from Idegon (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John from Idegon I was unable to read your message due to a lack of context as to which edits I had summarised as Vandalism. Could you please provide an example? Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I will if I need to pull you up in a report. Your behaviour in this and other threads on this page is decribed quite well at WP:DICK...you could try to exercise some WP:AGF (which isn't optional BTW) and accept that myself or any other editor is trying to help you. You've only made one edit to Brockton. Find it yourself. Trust that your edits will be monitored for a while. Your attitude is not conducive to a collegial environment. However I have already found enough times you've called what isn't vandalism vandalism. You know damn well what article I'm talking about. It's the fucking title of the section. You can either drop the attitude or it's likely your lack of collegiately on Wikipedia will render this problem moot. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My one edit[4] was performing the exact action as you[5], was it not? Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John, being that I’m on this page talking to Thepenguin9, I just saw this. It was an IP that claimed you were vandalizing. Penguin reverted the IP like you did supporting your decision. You mixed the two it seems. Similar thing happened to me recently with an admin that confused me and someone else. Happens when tons of reverts happen. Also insults are personal attacks which are against Wikiepdia policy. Please calm down and and reassess. Cao74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you're right. Anybody got a whale shark to smack me with? A trout ain't gonna do it. Sorry, Penguin. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did try pointing that out in my first reply, but I think the mist descended by then. No hard feelings though. Thepenguin9 (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying back down here. John from Idegon he did vandalise[6] my talk page. Twice[7]. Thepenguin9 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is unconstructive about my edit to Politifact

What I stated was a factual assessment of the position Politifact took in trying to find a basis to describe a truthful description of Ryan's proposal as if it were "mostly" false. Politifact was widely ridiculed for the specious argument it advanced, a fact which is not reflected in the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.134.40 (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a fact, back it up with a source show it was disputed. Thepenguin9 (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

Hello, I see you had reverted an edit made by an editor on the Deportation page. Just wanted to let you know they reverted your revert. I undid their revert and wanted you to be aware. This person has been vandalizing pages with Russian and Serbian nationalist edits. Either deletion or false statements. Please be aware. Cheers! 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He’s back at it on the same pages. Is there a way to protect the pages or block the person?74.101.190.2 (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He’s back.....again .......same articles....74.101.190.2 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Muttaburra

Sorry for the revert on Muttaburra, it was one of those multiple vandalism situations that I was trying to unpick and undid the wrong edit in the process. Kerry (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment - please respond

"As an academic you should understand that your own personal research won't suffice. If you contest the claim, you must do it properly by stating that the criteria may not be stronger, and cite a source that says as much Thepenguin9 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)"

I replied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modified_condition/decision_coverage and I do contest the claim. Would you kindly follow-up on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr JohnHRobb (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

foobar

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

80.5.241.48 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drill down Proposed for deletion

Hello Thepenguin9, the page Drill down was proposed for deletion by you. I find the page helpfull and would like to keep it. I reacted here. Please reply on that (or my talk) page. Thanks, --FlippyFlink (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

qedk (t 心 c) 14:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13

Hi, please note that G13 only applies to articles that have not been edited for 6 months, as per WP:CSD, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atlantic306 I am aware of the policy, however after discussion with an admin and after a separate admin accepting some of my CSD's I figured it would be a good policy to allow G13 should the page be 6 months stale. I have made a proposal at the village pump however to get another view on it. Thepenguin9 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Draft:*repeat repeat which you nominated for G13 despite it not being 6 months stale. If admins delete an article under G13 that is not 6 months stale then they have acted wrongly or in error. Recently a prolific admin was desyopped for incorrect csd deletions, regards Atlantic306 (talk)
oh I see. Well I do apologise for missing that one, I saw November and then proceeded to do the math wrong in my head. Thank you though for letting me know. Thepenguin9 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]