User talk:Penelope37
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film)
Welcome back, Penelope37!
Thank you for your contributions to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film)
I am Gareth Griffith-Jones... feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 08:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
MisterShiney ✉ 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
MisterShiney ✉ 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
In regard to this edit: there is no reason whatsoever to copy the billing order on some poster or someplace else in our articles. But that's not even what matters--what really matters is that the language you restored falls foul of the requirement that we edit neutrally. That means you don't put stuff like "acclaimed Swedish international hit" in the lead. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't. He was saying that the poster was justification. I used the OFFICIAL IMDb billing list.
and the language was not foul. Being acclaimed is a fact not an opinion.
- Perhaps English is not your first language. We don't put stuff like "acclaimed" in the lead. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe English isn't your first language. Did you not read the rest of what I said? "I didn't. He was saying that the poster was justification. I used the OFFICIAL IMDb billing list." The IMDb billing order list has Howard above Cooper.
- Ahem. As it happens, you're right on one point, haha. But you obviously didn't know the idiom "falls foul of". Also, please sign your messages on talk pages. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tlatelolco. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
June 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chappie (film). Last warning for this before you get blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Chappie (film). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.
Also edit warring over the course of several days... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, I don't want to take you to WP:ANI. That's a lot of drama toward no real good end. You need to stop edit warring to remove a reliable source. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, which means that we quote what the reliable sources says. We don't do our own research. When you examine the production companies and make an inference based on them, that's what we call original research. I'm sure that you believe you're right, but you can't put your opinions in a Wikipedia article. We go by what the sources say, not what our own beliefs are. You've been reverted by both me and Flyer22 on this over the course of several days. At this rate, you're going to end up violating the three revert rule. It's not worth it. Just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Penelope37 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: ). Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
GamerGate Sanctions Notice
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.- Cheers.--Jorm (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Complaint about your edits at Chappie (film)
Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Problematic user. You may respond there if you wish. The user is suggesting that you should be blocked for continuing the previous edit war on this article. You've been reported twice at WP:AN3 in 2015. If a block is needed, it will be for a longer time. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Long term edit warring at Chappie (film)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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.
You have continued to edit war about the nationality of the film, after previously being blocked twice for edit warring. You've never posted on the article talk page to express whatever concerns you may have. There has also been a recent discussion on user talk (permalink) which led to no concession by you and no promise to stop warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Penelope37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not Edit Warring. NinjaRobotPirate was edit warring and refused to discuss the issue. It has been a non-consensus on the Talk page and HE keeps edit warring to fit his POV. Please block him as he is the one edit warring, not me. http://www.imdb.com/company/co0156605/?ref_=ttco_co_7 Ollin Studio is Mexican, which is one of Chappie's Production companies. He keeps lying and saying it's an American movie, despite no one agreeing with him and the facts not being on his side. Ollin Studio disproves his claims. PLEASE check his agenda and OBSESSION with this issue. Penelope37 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were not edit-warring? Do you know what "edit-warring" means? It means repeatedly making the same change in an article, when one or more other editors have changed it away from your version. Here3 are thirteen times when you removed the same content: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. From what you say, you seem to think that doesn't count as edit-warring, because you are convinced you were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Penelope37, please take the advice offered and review Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Blaming other editors will not lead to you getting your account unblocked. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Penelope37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have never edit warred. He has edit warred. It takes two to tango, and he was the one repeatedly changing it. It was not listed as an American studio film first (because it is not), and he changed it to one. I did not enter the talk because other people already laid down the facts. What more is to be said? NinjaRobotPirate was proven wrong as the '''Ollin Studio is a Mexican Studio'''. It is time for you to confront NinjaRobotPirate's edit war against this film. This is an extremely serious and heinous issue. If you will not unblock me, then look into the issue yourself and see that he was proven incorrect and repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the existence of Ollin Studio, listed in the credits, which proves his claim incorrect. [[User:Penelope37|Penelope37]] ([[User talk:Penelope37#top|talk]]) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have never edit warred. He has edit warred. It takes two to tango, and he was the one repeatedly changing it. It was not listed as an American studio film first (because it is not), and he changed it to one. I did not enter the talk because other people already laid down the facts. What more is to be said? NinjaRobotPirate was proven wrong as the '''Ollin Studio is a Mexican Studio'''. It is time for you to confront NinjaRobotPirate's edit war against this film. This is an extremely serious and heinous issue. If you will not unblock me, then look into the issue yourself and see that he was proven incorrect and repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the existence of Ollin Studio, listed in the credits, which proves his claim incorrect. [[User:Penelope37|Penelope37]] ([[User talk:Penelope37#top|talk]]) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have never edit warred. He has edit warred. It takes two to tango, and he was the one repeatedly changing it. It was not listed as an American studio film first (because it is not), and he changed it to one. I did not enter the talk because other people already laid down the facts. What more is to be said? NinjaRobotPirate was proven wrong as the '''Ollin Studio is a Mexican Studio'''. It is time for you to confront NinjaRobotPirate's edit war against this film. This is an extremely serious and heinous issue. If you will not unblock me, then look into the issue yourself and see that he was proven incorrect and repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the existence of Ollin Studio, listed in the credits, which proves his claim incorrect. [[User:Penelope37|Penelope37]] ([[User talk:Penelope37#top|talk]]) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}