User talk:Padenton/Archives/2015 1

Jennifer Lawrence

Thank you Paddenton! I'm glad I'm not the only one who loves XMen, and yes, not my page, but still, thank you for correcting the Jennifer Lawrence thing. :)50.26.136.217 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Facebook's Article

I have not upset you have I? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. --Padenton (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC){{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Young Democrats of Hawaii

Aloha - I am new to Wikipedia. I was trying to flesh out some history for Young Democrats of Hawaii which is an affiliate of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, but it was deleted so speedily that I never had a chance to contest or correct my submission. This is an organization that has been in existence for more than 50 years, is an affiliate of both the Democratic Party and Young Democrats of America, and has produced dozens of notable political figures including at least two state legislative members (in my original version) and more who I was finding sources for when it disappeared. I was planning on also fleshing out other details of party history as well as I have a lot of Hawaii political biographies in my library. Please advise. CaptainMargarine (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi CaptainMargarine, welcome to Wikipedia. This guide here is a good one to go by: Wikipedia:Your first article. As the guide advises, it might be easiest to start working on it within your sandbox, and once it's fully fleshed out, then creating a full article for it. If you don't have enough information for a full article, you might consider including it as a sub-section inside the Democratic Party of Hawaii article. --Padenton (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Sadiq Al-Ghariani

Hello Padenton, I'm Samlibya. I have removed unsupported allegations on Sadiq Al-Ghariani, since all links points to websites without providing hard evidence about the accusations, rather than repeating the same text on different website!! you are free to check it your self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlibya (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Padenton,

You have deleted my changes to Sadiq al-Ghariani for the third time now although I did provide proper edit summary, I only removed parts where false accusation made without any legal evidence only links to other websites taking about these allegation without providing any sort of evidence Please note that this page supposed to provide information about this person and should not be used to address false allegation. Please consider my point as this might lead to legal action BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlibya (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sambliya, I have not edited Sadiq al-Ghariani since your last posting on my talk page. The content you removed appears to be well-sourced and you should raise your concerns in the article's talk page. --Padenton (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Unknown

You are editing war and I feel bullied simply because I have a different viewpoint. What a shame. 67.232.147.121 (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What article is this regarding? --Padenton (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Wrong tag?

That seemed more like vandalism/test edit, not unsourced. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? Thanks! --Padenton (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

LGBT rights protests surrounding the 2014 Winter Olympics‎. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ah. Yeah, I agree. --Padenton (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Ben Mankiewicz

You keep deleting my posts that he watches incest porn despite giving a reliable source and a video, where he admits to watching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3E00:102:95CC:1548:7495:4C71 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it once. [1] a) you had no source, b) It's hardly an important enough tidbit for a wikipedia article. ― Padenton |☎  16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Signature

Hi, I've put a screenshot on commons, feel free to delete or overwrite it. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Fattaneh Haj Seyed Javadi

Thanks, Padenton, for taking such an active interest in new articles. It's thanks to people like you that we can maintain high quality standards on Wikipedia. However with this one you certainly surprised me. I created the article at 16.39 and you tagged it for rapid deletion at 16.45! I usually work quite quickly on new articles and add more content with references within minutes. Unfortunately I am now having to spend time on explaining why this person is notable. I would advise you in future to wait at least an hour or two before tagging new articles as it is more than probable that content and references will be added. I have now hastily added a few bits and pieces and will be continuing to expand the article later today. I hope you will now understand that the tag should be removed. Keep up the good work! I'm sure that in most cases you are justified in your efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn ― Padenton |☎  17:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. That's just the way things should work. Cheers!--Ipigott (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Mama Melrose's Ristorante Italiano

Hi Padenton,

I noticed that you tagged Mama Melrose's Ristorante Italiano for speedy deletion, arguing that it is unambiguously promotional and would require a complete rewrite in order to not be so. Might you be willing to revisit this conclusion? I would be glad to address any issues you have with the article, as there is a multitude of reliable, secondary sources with which I might do so.

Neelix (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, what particularly stood out to me as promotional was "the restaurant specializes in Italian cuisine, serving such dishes as ossobuco, wood-fired flatbread pizza, and grilled salmon.[3] A Fantasmic! dinner package is available that grants restaurant guests quicker access to this show", which does not seem encyclopedic to me. I also don't feel that coverage in those sources would make it notable, as those WDW guides include sections on all rides/restaurants at WDW. In comparison to other restaurants at WDW, this seems like a rather ordinary restaurant, and that is why I nominated it. Most of the other restaurants at WDW are much larger and have various themes that make them unique, which is why I feel they are more notable than this. However, I don't intend to push the issue any if the nomination fails. ― Padenton |☎  19:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rape in India. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
TCKTKtool (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rape in India. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Swarm ^X 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, I unblocked you. See User talk:OccultZone#March 2015 for the reason. Bgwhite (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Permalink: [2]― Padenton|✉   23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Ochre edit

Hi,

I was editing the ochre page to quote from and reference the most recent translation of Cennino Cennini's Libro dell'Arte rather than the one made by Daniel Thompson in the 1930s. I considered that a constructive change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cennino (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I only meant to undo one of your edits, which I assumed was an accident, I've undone my revert and undone that specific edit. Cheers! ― Padenton|✉   20:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Padenton - I'm new to this and find the editing process very hard to master so, yes, I'm afraid I make a lot of mistakes. Cennino (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Martin Tillman

Hi Padenton,

I work for Martin Tillman and the edits I made were per his request. We are curious what issues specifically you find not productive.

We appreciate your enthusiasm and fan loyalty.

Best, Christinamm (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Christina

ps can i please have your personal email? {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

BLP Discretionary Sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

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

Dreadstar ☥ 02:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Rollback

Hi Padenton. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) {{Resolved}}

Eileen Daly

You requested I insert a reference to my edit - I do so - then you accuse me of vandalism. That's NOT on. This page you are defending is about a woman ONLY known for pornography - and a minor player at that. The rest is irrelevant. How do I complain about your behaviour? Vburmester (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to follow the process here: WP:DISPUTE. I removed your edit because an internet message board does not meet WP:RS. I am not defending anyone, I couldn't care less if she did pornography or not. The lead already said that she is an adult model. --Padenton (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The reference I provided sufficed for the Wikipedia page on Ben Dover. I have complained about your bullying behaviour via email and will now open a dispute. Vburmester (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Conspiracy theories

Hello Padenton,

I wrote an expansion of the definition of conspiracy theories and believe it was wrongfully deleted. The original definition did not cite a source but provided an explanation (as I did) and a few hyperlinked examples. The writer himself asserted that conspiracy theories cannot be proven by historical record but did not address how conspiracy theories fail to be proven at the time of their creation due to dismissing forces. Also, the writer discusses how they conspiracy theories go against consensus but that defines conspiracy theories as any unpopular idea. Evolution is also an unpopular idea which goes against consensus in many countries but is not suported as a conspiracy theory, rather a theory supported by sound scientific arguementation (some wrongly labeled conspiracy theories incorporate proven facts but are unable to achieve full validation).

I can upload a new expansion with a full list of citations later. I am concerned about the language used in describing conspiracy theories and believed that my addition addressed some aspects of conspiracy theories which were not given proper attention. Again, I would be happy to rewrite what I submitted with full citations, however I think you should apply that same level of scrutiny to assessing the entire article, which to me read as biased and inadvertently equated sound theories such as those posed by the 911 truth movement with actual conspiracy theories such as theories about extraterrestrials.

My point is that this as well as other articles on conspiracy theories deserve a full-review.

Thank you for your time and your edit! Jakakowic2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakakowic2 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Attempt to add a reference failed

Hello.

I was attempting to add a reference to the Manual Arts High School page. I used the inline reference, amazon.com/author/edwinerickson.

You removed the reference because you thought I was only testing. Actually, I was attempting to follow Wikipedia guidelines about adding references.

Edwin Erickson Author15 Author2015 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC) {{Resolved}}

kuruvadi

Hi padenton... kuruvadi is a small village in Ramanathupuram dist. in Tamil Nadu,India. Some body redirected to some other article. So I just edited that redirected syntax and going to add details about my village and census in that page grom goverment article and reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharikcse (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) {{Resolved}}

Alfred Benlloch

Hello Padenton. The person pass away in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xipanddale (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC) {{Resolved}}

Calvinci

Ha, I see you created an SPI pretty much simultaneously with me. I just took a little longer, added some links. I guess the clerks will clean up the dual submission? Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL, I suppose so. ― Padenton |☎  19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Indivior

Hi - I am in the process of writing an article on Indivior, one of largest companies on the London Stock Exchange. I note you have put a speedy delete on it. You may not have heard of the company but it made £562 million on profit last year. It has just recently floated so it is currently in the news. Please can you remove the tag so I can expand the article? Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You are free to expand the article as much as you wish while the tag is there. ― Padenton |☎  19:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for pushing the point but this is a company capitalised at over £2bn. I written nearly 2,000 articles, mainly on major companies, and I cannot recall this ever happening. Please can you reconsider? Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. If it's fine, the CSD will be denied and removed by an admin. ― Padenton |☎  19:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that this is a company capitalised at over £2bn and you seem to be applying tags indiscriminately. Dormskirk (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:LISTED states that its listing in LSX (nor its capitalization) does not give it notability. I'm sorry that you feel that the CSD template being on your article a few hours is such an inconvenience for you when the company has been fine without a page for so long, but you're just going to have to be patient. ― Padenton |☎  19:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:LISTED refers to "the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion". In this particular case it is obviously notable because of its large capitalisation. I am not sure why you require me to be patient - you need to justify adding the tag. Dormskirk (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Even 7 minutes after the article's creation it had a reference from Investors Chronicle which clearly "credibly indicate[s] the importance or significance of the subject.", along with its FTSE250 status (it's not just listed, it's one of the top 250 listed companies). I have removed the speedy tag. Note that WP:LISTED also states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion". In any case, please do not tag articles for speedy deletion so soon unless they are clearly attack pages or copyvio. Thanks. PamD 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

SPI

I do believe that your comments are rather unhelpful like you had already pointed from start. They are not serving any benefit over there. Discarding strong similarities between an account with 132 edits compared to other account that has only 3470 edits as 'coincidental' looks meaningless and also seems to be challenging the amount similarities that cannot be found only in two persons. And your discussion is clearly about content than it is about SPI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:-/ sorry, I tried. Zhanzhao just seems to be completely different than the IPs. I know you have a massive amount of edits (nice job btw), but 3470 isn't a small amount. It does seem to me that the IP editor knew more about Wikipedia warning templates than I would expect, but I don't think it's Zhanzhao. I didn't want to make it too lengthy in the SPI, but before this latest edit war happened, the IP was edit warring me over the lead section, and was clearly quite irrational about the whole thing in the edit messages. However, if you look at the talk section for the lead paragraph that I started, explaining my changes, Zhanzhao responded quite rationally.

We got the unimportant bits taken out as they should have, our block was removed, does this really need to continue? Resaltador, you might be onto something, but I think a lot of these similarities are too common to be useful information. ― Padenton|✉   22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

"Disruptive" editing

What precisely is disruptive about my editing? I removed a single line from an article citing a source of extremely dubious reliability and obvious bias. This line contained a statistic that the cited source presents without any reference or even hint as to the methodology used or even any specific observer of the implied data; it merely states that "estimates from research suggest" said statistic. Absolutely no references, sources, or citations of any kind are offered to support the claim. In what way does this act of technical editing constitute "blanking", especially considering one single line was removed? If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia protocol is for content to be added, then reverted by other editors, and then discussed. I have justified my revision in the talk page of the article in question, however the editor who is reverting my revision is not making any attempt to reach consensus nor discuss the apparent bias and doubtful credibility of the citation. Furthermore, I have neither edited nor deleted any templates or materials, so I have to ask what justifies your message beyond simple harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.162.123 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a poor source. It's an official source from the British government. I see nothing in the talk page about it, and your contributions page shows no activity on said talk page. The warning is because you've now tried to remove it 4 times, with no reasoning each time. ― Padenton|✉   16:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Though it is authored by a government organization, it is neither a census nor statistics department, nor any other kind of organization tasked with the collection, organization, or presentation of quantitative data. It is a advocacy report by the Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate who, until recently, where a sub-department of the Crown Prosecution Service. The blatant conflict of interest in their funding has now been slightly obscured, but the organization still comes to exactly the same conclusions in all of their "reports" (which are not any kind of respectable research): the Crown Prosecution Service needs more funding, specialized lawyers, special training, etc. to do their job, which will in turn give the inspectorate more to inspect and more funding. The specific report cited in the line I've removed has the same manner of suggestions, as well as worrying statistics pulled from thin air. It is about as reputable as a DEA report that claims we have to spend more on the war on drugs, and that 99% of child molesters are drug traffickers. The "poor source, see talk page" in my edit summaries refers to the extremely well-hidden section of the Rape statistics talk page titled "Under-reporting". I've posted there while assigned a different IP address. This brings up the question of why you didn't search for the talk page contributions of the person who was previously reverting my revisions, and why you didn't feel the need to track down the "Under-reporting" section of the talk page and attempt consensus before reverting. I'm still waiting to hear how the deletion of a single line constitutes "blanking". 108.203.162.123 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a census or statistics department. Crime statistics reports are perfectly fine, and count as WP:RS. Unless you have a reliable source that explicitly shows that that report was pulled out of thin air, take your conspiracy BS elsewhere. I did search the talk page. Your section (by a diff IP) is not grounds to remove the source altogether. I've reworded the sentence to make it clearer that it is an estimate. ― Padenton|✉   17:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The report as a whole is (tenuously) acceptable, being a (non-peer-reviewed, self-published) primary source with some implied authority/reputability (in addition to inherent bias*), but that doesn't mean the entire thing can be treated as reliable. The actual primary research results they directly observed can be cited as primary data, but the contentious line can't because the report authors did not personally observe the quoted "statistic"; it's a generalization of someone else's research. Nor can that line be quoted as secondary data since there's no attribution of the source(s) being summarized. Secondary sources are considered reliable in as much as they eventually boil down to primary sources that have been peer-reviewed and replicated. If there's no documented observer and no methodology to replicate, then it isn't scientific data and is assumed unreliable; after all, it's just unverifiable rumor.

Unless you have a reliable source that explicitly shows that that report was pulled out of thin air, take your conspiracy BS elsewhere.

I guess the core issue is sailing way over your head. The report is chock-full of primary research, but the contentious line isn't a part of that research, nor is it attributed to any particular source(s). The only situation in which it would be okay to quote an uncited statistic like that would be if this were a very reputable, unbiased, neutral textbook stating a fact widely agreed upon in the field. But it isn't. Instead, this document is about half primary research and half advocacy, with a few uncited rumors sprinkled in. I feel like you're not quite grasping the fact that a report making a litany of suggested changes to prosecution methods, including recommendations for new roles, training, and certification all with the intent of increasing conviction rates is indeed a political advocacy report. As a comparison, when the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports annual crime stats, they highlight trends, describe the methodology, and present the detailed results. The BJS doesn't use the same report to advocate new prosecution guidelines to increase conviction rates. Reporting primary data and statistics does not mean a source is inherently reliable or neutral, or that it can't be political advocacy. In fact, that's exactly why it's a questionable source: in the world of scientific, peer-reviewed research you're not supposed to mix primary data with advocacy. That's called "advocacy research", which is a pejorative term for distinguishing this kind of unreliable stuff from "real" scientific research: i.e. the peer-reviewed kind that doesn't advocate means to a (political) end. But more to the point of the controversial quote, unverifiable claims, even when sneakily inserted among primary observations, should never be cited as reputable data, especially when coming from distinctly biased sources like advocacy research. And you don't use reliable sources to "prove" something was pulled out of thin air—that's a perfectly backward understanding of the philosophy of science—you take the absence of supporting data as cause for doubt and a wealth of supporting data as a case for acceptance. This is what is commonly referred to as "science", not "conspiracy BS": scientific knowledge is built up inductively, so things are believed if they're repeatable and agree with other observations; a result that hasn't been peer-reviewed and lacks any process to replicate it is completely worthless, even if it comes from an "official" government report. You seem to have very strong opinions as to what constitutes a good source, but those opinions don't appear to be at all informed. I really wish editors would base their judgments on critical analysis rather than how they "feel" about a source or revision. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

*a government department suggesting criminal procedure reforms cannot be free from political bias, as suggested in WP:BIASED --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.162.123 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

108.203.162.123 (talk) I don't care anymore dude. ― Padenton|✉   14:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

References

{{Resolved}}

Wrote information about people who were born in Nottingham

According the imdb and other sources, you asked to write a citation but as I am trying to understand the 'free speech' in this site please explain citation. In relation to Arsher Ali who was an actor from the films Four Lions was one of many people that I wrote that were born in my proud city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.235.253 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Because IMDb relies on user submissions for all of its data, it doesn't meet WP:RS and should not be used on Wikipedia except in the External Links sections for those that work in the film/tv industry and films. If you can find news sources or even an official website of the person, I would have no issue with that. ― Padenton|✉   20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it makes sense. But even here, it claims that Arsher Ali was born in Basford, which is in the city of Nottingham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.235.253 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

hello, padenton, thanks for welcoming me on board, can you please delete all my edits I have made on the said article please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyclef Nzavi (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

hindoos

what are you talking about? that is how the word "Hindus" was spelt by people in 18th century england. since the subject is the title of a lecture, placed in quotes, i believe the styler guide states it should be verbatim, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.69.96 (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

lubitz

what is disruptive - it is well referenced here:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=andreas%20lubitz%20mass%20murderer

are you denying he committed mass murder or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.69.96 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

sochi

I suggest if you want to use the catch all term "media", you find some non Western sources to back up your assertions.

It's quite patronising to the rest of the world to assume it follows Western norms. Very colonial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.69.96 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

David Strossmayer

Hi Padenton,

Plz find encosed my answer to XlinkBot which consider your decision to sent me the final warning!

Hello XLinkBot However removed the inappropriate link (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Concordia-Models/) on the page also deleted hours of my other hard work, I was trying to do on the page after I have been reading some of the articles in MOS, as previously advised by Beetstra. Today when I started to work on the page I realized it and made on big parts of the page copy/paste from the last saved version. This alerted your Admin Padenton which sent me the last warning such as:"This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to David Strossmayer. ― Padenton|✉ 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)" Am I punished for a crime I didn't do, just because I am not very familiar with the html codes, which are BTW necessary for a building of the pages here???I accepted the invitation of Co-oP and will use mentorship, one step of the time, to make sure that everything is OK. Please forgive me if I caused any inconvenience with my speedy editing! Sincerely Uzi Oz עוזי אוז — Preceding unsigned comment added by UziOz (talk • contribs)

{{Resolved}}

Meatpuppets

What's up with your repeated unsubstantiated allegations of meatpuppetry? Just who are you referring to? And what is the evidence? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a puppet. --IO Device (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@IO Device: No, but this thread by the first person casting a keep vote does: [3] Satisfied? ― Padenton|✉   13:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@IO Device: I will also note that this link has been in the canvassing notice since last night. ― Padenton|✉   13:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I see nothing wrong with popularizing an AfD as long as preexisting editors (not brand new users) are the only ones who comment on the AfD. Why might you believe this is wrong, and that Wikipedia contributors must learn of the AfD only through Wikipedia alone? In the two links, there is no attempt to bias anyone - it's merely a notification of the AfD. --IO Device (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@IO Device: Yawn...Per WP:CANVAS, I warned him, and he edited his post in the thread. Regardless, go read WP:CANVAS so you are aware of what is proper alerting of editors to an AfD and what is not. Also, harassing other editors on their talk pages and stalking them to other discussions because you don't like their votes is also improper. ― Padenton|✉   14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not me who is harassing numerous users on the AfD page, trying pointlessly to get them to change their perspective. Please look at yourself. Some of your efforts are not only wasteful for yourself, but more importantly for the community at large. --IO Device (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@IO Device: I have done no such thing. Discussion is permitted in an AfD, that's the point of the AfD. I would also note that you are one to talk, having stalked me to another AfD and harassing Msnicki as well. I have proven my claim of Meatpuppetry (even before you came here to harass me about it) and my patience with you is wearing thin. Now open a WP:ANI or piss off. ― Padenton|✉   19:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Yawn

"You sure sound like the same person". Not a chance. It would impossible to fake that level of ignorance about Wikipedia. Rtc is disruptive as hell, but not completely incompetent. He also has far better language skills, saying things like non sequitur - correctly. And he's been waving his arms for hours about being falsely accused of being Rtc, when no one ever said that. wintonian merely referred to his questionable short history in his opening ANI post. I fear you've unnecessarily fanned a 14-year-old flame. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

3RR

As I warned User:Beyond My Ken, you also appear to be engaged in an edit war at I'm not a scientist. You're both at three reverts now in less than an hour. I suggest you step away from this right now to avoid being blocked, and if possible, work on a solution on neutral territory. Failure to do so will result in one or both of you being blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your assistance. Do you have any advice as to how best to handle it? I had already discussed removing the articles attributing the phrase to other editors in the AfD and the talk page, and now he has edit warred for it, with no intention of joining the discussion and no intent to reach any form of consensus that doesn't agree with his own biases. Rather than discussing his bold edit, he demands that it stay up until we discuss it further. ― Padenton|✉   21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Warren

Are we in agreement as to the main source of the controversy? That is to say: Do you agree that the controversy was launched by Warren's 1) listing herself as a minority in 2) a minority-recruitment directory despite 3) having no documented minority ancestry. (Note: Obviously, agreeing that those three points are what in fact caused the controversy does not mean that you think Warren did anything wrong, or that the controversy was warranted.) If you disagree, please let me know which of the three points you disagree with. I can easily document each of them for you.

I feel like the controversy has been mischaracterized as 'Scott Brown making fun of a multiracial person who looks white.' That's a straw man argument. There are plenty of public figures and politicians who have identified as minorities even though they 'look white.' Gus Hawkins, longtime member of the Congressional Black Caucus, met no controversy for his identity as an African American. Warren's case is strange not because she is a multiracial person who looks white, but because she apparently said she is a minority despite the fact that all her parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents look like and identify as fully white. Steeletrap (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I can agree with those. I took a look at your changes last night, I don't have an issue with them. Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit the other day with my revert. The only thing I still think could use improvement is "despite having no documented minority ancestors", but if no one else has an issue with it, I don't feel too strongly about it and I'll live. I think maybe a more neutral phrasing might be

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Warren had listed herself as a minority in Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995, despite having no documented minority ancestors.

changed to

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Warren had listed herself as a minority in Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995. When the controversy broke, Warren was unable to produce any documentation to suggest (could also be 'confirm') any of her ancestors were minorities.

― Padenton|✉   13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Oops

Hi, At scientific opininion on climate change, I didn't realize you had basically self-reverted when I backed up to the earlier version, so apologies for the edit summary I used and thanks for self-correcting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC) {{Resolved}}

Your signiture...

I like it so much I'm trying to copy it with different colors. Would you help me get it right? My Sandbox has my (feeble) efforts. Cheers! Shir-El too 17:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shir-El too: Thanks, sorry I forgot about this. It looks like you got it working, is there a specific issue you were having with it? Here's a few more code samples (as well as other fonts/symbols I thought about using): User:Padenton/signatures. ― Padenton|✉   20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shir-El too: I was looking for this yesterday, finally found it. This guide and the signatures at the bottom may also be helpful: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial. ― Padenton|✉   18:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers! Shir-El too 17:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Why did you revert my comment to another editor

I am curious as to your objective with the removal of my short comment to David? Why would you do that?? talk→ WPPilot  22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Hmmm weird. I have David Eppstein's talk page on my watchlist because I posted something to him a while back. The only thing I can think of is I must've accidentally clicked the rollback button. Terribly sorry. ― Padenton|✉   23:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all, I just thought it was random so I asked. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  01:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Revert on Shooting of Michael Brown

Sorry, didn't intend to revert both of your edits. I reverted your removal of the Buzzfeed reference because it is a reliable source for the particular claim at issue in the article. Whether it's a reliable source for other claims is irrelevant. Dyrnych (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

K. I just felt it was unneeded as there was already another source there. I've gone and fixed the attribution concern and the accidental rv. ― Padenton|✉   20:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Dyrnych (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Confused

Why are you relisting every single AfD debate on the 20th when a lot of them have clear consensus one way or the other? Wizardman 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wizardman: I didn't feel comfortable closing the keeps with lengthy discussion, and I can't do anything about the deletes. This way someone else can close them, or more discussion can be had, or whatever. My understanding is that relisted debates don't need to be left to expire and can be closed throughout that period by any uninvolved editor, is that not the case? ― Padenton|✉   21:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Technically that's not wrong, but in practice it ends up going the full 7+ days again, which in the clear cases there's no point in doing. Wizardman 21:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wizardman: okay, will leave the clear ones non-relisted in the future. ― Padenton|✉   21:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

??

Singular they –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Fair enough, redacted. ― Padenton|✉   21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki

I have requested editor assistance becuase of your inappropriate actions and behaviors please see: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki for details Itsmeront (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) {{Resolved}}

Mentioned

You're aware of the AE filing (since you filed it) but please note that I'm proposing to notify several people including you about a possible sanction on future edits at False accusation of rape. See my proposal in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Roscelese. You can respond if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks, I haven't had a chance to look at it thoroughly yet, but I plan to respond to that proposal later tonight (UTC-4). ― Padenton|✉   15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Itsmeront (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC) {{Resolved}}

discredited

why do you want discredited as a descriptor in the first sentence? I'd prefer to just say it was an article, and then say it was discredited later in the paragraph. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is discredited and will likely eventually be retracted. I feel it's important to have it in the first sentence because it changes the understanding of the entire article. Another issue is that the entire paragraph may not appear in google search results for the article, which is where most people will come in from. ― Padenton|✉   23:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You want people searching for this to see "Discredited" in the google snippet? Dingsuntil (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources have called it discredited, Rolling Stone themselves have issued an apology casting doubt upon the story's factual accuracy.― Padenton|✉   23:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

These are all perfectly good reasons to say it is discredited in the first paragraph, but not necessarily in the first sentence. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Universal Identifier Network

Hi, Padenton. I have got some demonstrations of the applicaiton of Universal Identifier Network. It may be illegal to post these documents in the wikipedai because of WP:PROMO. So, could you please give me an e-mail address so as to transfer the documents to you? Thanks for your valuable advices。Jiangzhongbai (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Programming languages nursery

Have you seen my suggestion on creating pages like "New programming languages from year XXXX", where any programming language that don't meet notability by itself but still has reasonable sources can be added (or merged after an article deletion)? Where this discussion can be had? Is there any effort made to keep the relevant content from being lost, like moving it to Rosetta Code, or something like that?

I personally like when I can find the information I want in wikipedia, and I don't care for a second if the world think it is notable or not. I know that this is done to improve the average quality of the wiki, but I think that outdated information for example is better than no information at all. And in wikipedia you can see when that info was updated. IMHO the harm done when outright deleleting those things is much greater than the harm of some slightly outdated info in wikipedia. Wikipedia lose contributors that lost their work they have done for free. Plus the effort wasted in those deletion arguments. Caroliano (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Elections in the Dominican Republic's correction

Hello Padenton, I'm Israel Mencía, thanks for your correction about my editing without Edit summary's explication of Elections in the Dominican Republic. In accordance to your suggestion, I have revert your correction and explained the reasons of my edition in the article's Talk Page, which is as follow:

"I deleted Sections that make reference to past elections result of the Dominican Republic, considering that sections to be unhelpful in this article because there exist independent articles for every one of these elections. In addiction to the deletion, I have add some others Sections to explain better, in general way, the electoral process in the Dominican Republic."

Please direct to Talk:Elections in the Dominican Republic for a better compression of my edition, if you have any questions or suggestion let me now your opinion leaving me a message on my talk page. Thanks.Israel Mencía (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bull of Navan

Please re-read the article, and compare it to the sources listed. I nominated it under multiple criteria, but only G10 showed. Excerpted from article "been well received among the frequently drunk and confused juvenile populace", "ill help "keep the casualty (unit) at Navan Hospital open" due to the influx of drunken people riding it and falling off.", "become "a popular meeting place for people of the town" who happen to be inebriated". Article, as a whole, it a hoax at least. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Death-related_lists

Hi, I've been trying to sort out Category:Death-related_lists. Since it's a category of lists, almost every title starts with an L. I've been tweaking the category tags so that more lists move out of the "L" ordering to a more sensible alphabetic position, as you can see by looking at the category. My edit to List of rampage killers moved that list from "L" for "List" to "R" for "Rampage". You've reverted that edit for some reason, so now it's gone back to "L". What do you recommend we do about alphabetical ordering of that category? It doesn't seem sensible to me to keep all the lists under "L". Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: Sorry, that's a feature I'm not familiar with. I learned something new today :-). I've reverted my revert, sorry for the inconvenience. ― Padenton|✉   15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a bit of an obscure feature of categories, and I've only learnt what it does recently. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I'm exploring the possibility of proposing a topic ban of User:Marteau in the Neil deGrasse Tyson-related topic area for his continued disruption. However, I've noticed that you've commented about his behavior in the Elizabeth Warren topic area as well. I'm wondering if we shouldn't be combining our efforts to propose a coordinated topic ban on political topics. In the case of Tyson, he's repeatedly trying to go against consensus by adding material about Tyson's quotes concerning conservatives. I'm not entirely sure what he's doing in the Warren area, but it can't be a coincidence that both subjects are considered liberal and Marteau's pushing some kind of conservative POV. In any case, let me know what he's doing in the Warren article so I can better understand the problem. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas:I don't agree with him on the Elizabeth Warren discussion, but your conclusion seems unlikely. The debate I'm having in the Elizabeth Warren article is one only opposed by far-leftists, not conservatives. Also, Neil DeGrasse Tyson may be considered liberal by liberals, but he refuses to identify with the label, just as he did when he was asked if he was an atheist. ― Padenton|✉   14:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Padenton. My "conclusion" is supported by nine talk page discussion archives, and is about as far from "unlikely" as you can get. The position Marteau is pushing is a far right talking point promoted by a conservative website. Whether Tyson identifies as a liberal is irrelevant: he is considered, classified, and excoriated as a liberal by conservatives. Viriditas (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I don't see Marteau pushing a far right talking point, it does not appear likely to me that he would, and I don't care enough to read through archives. I don't care what political ideology people think NDGT fits with, the only opinion on that topic that matters is his own. I also see people disputing whether you should have archived discussions or not. Perhaps its best to wait for the bot to do that. ― Padenton|✉   18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your view. I'm afraid we strongly disagree on the most basic facts. Having followed this issue very closely for the last eight months and having read virtually every publication and Wikipedia discussion on the matter, I'll be pursuing a separate topic ban without your participation. Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

k. ― Padenton|✉   18:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Incivility

You've been warned before, been redacted and apologized, yet you keep doing it.[4][5] - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Funny...I don't see a warning anywhere, or an apology. But whatever, feel free to report me to ANI, and you can explain to other administrators your repeated attempts to inject negative unsourced POV into a BLP against consensus. See you there. ― Padenton|✉   23:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Incivility:[6] Warning:[7] Agreement you crossed the line: [8] - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I see a request to not resort to namecalling, which was quickly redacted and I did apologize for. This is not namecalling, nor does it qualify for WP:INCIVILITY. See WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Which of these criteria do the above diffs represent? Careful this one doesn't WP:BOOMERANG on you, as I can point to quite a few diffs myself. ― Padenton|✉   23:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

common outcomes

I renominated the first pink panther article. Please hold off on changing the others so we can get the 3rd mass AFD settled and not have to go touch all the articles again.

However, if editors thought the other 50ish episodes were not notable, does not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes really come into play here? IS there some reason you think these individual episodes are worthy? Do you plan on reviewing the rest of my contribution history on other completely unrelated articles? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: The individual episodes were not mentioned in the AfDs you linked and deserve their own AfD where users watching the article can be notified to participate. I don't have the time right now to review the rest of your contribution history, but if there are other articles you redirected that weren't mentioned in the AfD you should undo them and start similar discussions. It is common for some episodes of a notable series to be notable, and the non-notability of some episodes doesn't mean all of them are not notable. ― Padenton|✉   20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I took that into account when I did not redirect The Pink Phink which is individually notable. Do you see any reason that those episodes are notable? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I award you the Socratic Barnstar for your excellent and consistent arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fredinburg; and for your ability and skill in correctly explaining Wikipedia policy in that regard. Law Lord (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for relisting

I see you did some work on the article Kodjo Adabra, thank you! If I understand, you must have a somewhat distinguished role here at Wiki, and I'm thinking you might be kind and tell me what are my options to clean up the format of the project page? It is my first attempt to create, and coming close to two weeks soon here I already see that there is a proper place for everything, and simply put, my noob speech is often out of place and in reality probably rather ugly to someone with experience in Wiki's process of discussing articles for deletion.

I will also ask rather bodly, does the chance in status mean that the sources are adequate and accepted to meet Wiki's guidelines? I am imagining the answer might be yes, however the benevolence of the entire community has left me without my congratulatory trophy! What I am saying is I feel as though I have made progress, even though it is still up for deletion, so I hesitate as well, there is certainly work left to do, in any case, and I suppose I am looking for some direction, as aforementioned, however other tracks entirely would not be unexpected yet welcome.

Thanks, and I hope you are well, Nolanpowers (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

AfDs for newly drafted/signed NFL players

• Padenton, if you initiate more AfDs for college football players who are newly drafted/signed in the NFL, I would appreciate being pinged immediately. I work with CFB and NFL notability on a regular basis, I understand the interplay of WP:COLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, and I am familiar with most of the AfD precedents on point. I agree that these articles should not be mass nominated, but treated individually, with some kept and some deleted. Nominating a couple dozen at once is a formula for wasting everyone's time, as people squabble over multiple articles, which should have different AfD outcomes, all at once. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk Page of Ant & Dec

Hi Padenton,

I see you have edited Ant & Dec previously, there is a discussion on the Talk Page regarding the main image, i.e. which image best shows the two. Please leave your comments...SethWhales ^talk

@Seth Whales: Sorry, nothing more than semi-automated vandalism reverts (WP:HUGGLE), I don't really know anything about the show, so it's probably best for me to just leave it to those that are familiar with it. ― Padenton|✉   01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues with the GamerGate page

Hello, Padenton. You appear to be concerned with neutrality in articles, so I thought that this issue required your attention.

The GamerGate page [9] is suffering, as I see it, from a conflict of interest involving its sources. The movement itself can be directly witnessed in its place of origin (Twitter), yet the editors of the article only adopt as "reliable sources" articles by the very media that is being accused of corruption and lack of ethics by the GamerGate movement itself (a movement that claims to be about ethics in gaming journalism). In other words, the "reliable sources" are directly involved in the conflict, and that can't be considered acceptable. They have crafted a narrative of misogyny and harassment as a means to divert the attention from the accusations of corruption, but a quick search can reveal that most of the harassment comes from the opposing side: [10][11] (the second link contains a collection of twitter posts involving the harassment of GamerGate supporters. The twitter posts themselves can be considered a primary source). Furthermore, the current editors are shutting down any attempts at restoring the neutrality of the article.

When the media is involved in the conflict, the standards for reliable sourcing must account for this fact. Wikipedia Policy clearly states that primary sources can be used on certain occasions [12] This is such an occasion, as the original twitter posts containing the hashtag are direct evidence of what the GamerGate movement is about, and they mostly contradict what the alleged reliable sources are stating. Teraus (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Teraus: I'm short on sleep at the moment and I'm about to start exams, so I probably won't have much time to get involved in such a controversial subject for another 2 weeks I'm afraid. If there's a clear issue, I would try WP:NPOVN, maybe someone there could be helpful. ― Padenton|✉   02:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RFD, thank you

I just wanted to say thanks for your contributions to WP:RFD. It is a bit of a club, as all these backwaters are, but I think you have joined it without anyone noticing yet! Your contributions, I for one appreciate. I shall not always agree with you, but will argue I hope always politely but vigorously. And sometimes you are right and I am wrong. And if I am wrong, I say so (as I did at a recent listing where you are right). Carry on, a true credit to Wikipedia, I for one appreciate it. I don't know how else to put it, in real life I would give you a hug — don't know if you are man or woman and don't care either, everyone needs a hug — and a half pint of beer (you don't deserve more than that). Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86

For the article False accusation of rape, you made some really helpful comments—thank you! I have now submitted something to WP:ANI about what happened. The title is the title of this section.  EllieTea (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that ArbCom has effectively reached a decision on what to do with False accusation of rape. I know that ArbCom is overbusy, but I wish that they had looked into this more deeply. I am, though, extremely and very much glad that you filed the AE Request with them.
Kind wishes, EllieTea (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know...

If you don't know how to read a diff, or don't read what someone has posted, then you really shouldn't undo others' edits. On AN/I, the OP offered up their own sock-puppetry/block evasion evidence.[13] It is hard enough to deal with these issues without decent and experienced editors like yourself who happen - in this instance - to lose focus and miss the evidence and undo attempts to prevent vandalism. Thanks, and no offense intended! Scr★pIron^IV 05:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

AE form filling

At "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any" you wrote "None that I'm aware of", although you could research, you could also write "Blocked x times". Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPA & Template:spa

Hi Padenton, Many thanks for your thoughts on WP:SPA & Template:spa here, especially the advice on "subst". It is always good to read a different opinion.

I would like to note that I was not suggesting that the editor was attempting anything illegitimate; as this is expressly not the purpose of the Template:Spa tag. The "IP edit" was also not a factor in the decision to add the tag.

On reflection & review (of both WP:SPA & the editors contributions[14][15]), I cannot concur that the topic is sufficiently "diversified" or that the editor meets the requirement of having a "diverse range of edits"; consequently, I will be re-adding the tag. I must trust the editor closing the MfD discussion to form their own judgement.

I also have some thoughts on WP:BLP application which are relevant to the MfD discussion. I will add those, and a brief summary of this note, to that page. Regards, - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Padenton, Having reflected, and reviewed the points raised on the MfD page, I believe that the reasoned arguments are sufficient. I have removed the Template:spa tag. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Series consultant Elio Garcia"

In response to your edit, I'm not in a position to say whether Elio Garcia has an inflated ego, but he actually is a consultant on the Game of Thrones HBO series. I looked up his and Antonsson's credentials last year when determining whether Westeros.org met Wikipedia's expert criteria for acceptable self-published sources (it does). Whether "series consultant" is the best thing to call Garcia is more subjective, but if you changed it because you thought it wasn't literally true, you can put your mind at rest. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)