User talk:Padenton

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)

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)Template:Z33

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alfred Benlloch

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.