User talk:Padenton
This is Padenton's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
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
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
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Wikipedia_Rollbacker.svg/130px-Wikipedia_Rollbacker.svg.png)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/30px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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)