User talk:Pentock

Pentock, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Pentock! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Onision, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- Mr X 🖋 15:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 their 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 15:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 us presidential election doesn’t include Jo Jogensen

Put Jo Jorgensen on the page with trump and Biden she’s on all the ballots in all the states Ogwisconsin (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McConnell

We DON'T add the successors-to-be in the infoboxes. So please stop it. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Did you not see other pages for members of Congress before they were sworn. It showed their successors. Also someone else added their successor the second time after you removed it, NOT me. I simply fixed it. Know your facts. Pentock (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't suppose to be added, until swearing in. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again you need to get your facts straight. It has been precedent to add their successor as an elect. That is a FACT. Also it was never discussed on the Mitch McConnell page not to add their successor til swearing in. That is another FACT. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Stop ignoring facts. Pentock (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC was held on this matter & the results was to not show them, until they were sworn in. Don't believe me? ask @Mandruss:. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay is correct. Regardless of what has been done in the past, which may be what you're referring to, a recent RfC reached consensus to omit the field until the successor takes office. That applies to all Wikipedia articles about officeholders; i.e. all occurrences of {{Infobox officeholder}}. Are you one of the editors who has already had this explained to you? I can't keep track. Anyway, now you have. Knowingly and repeatedly editing against a consensus is usually considered disruption and could earn you a sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also the last sentence at Template:Infobox officeholder#Usage. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And GoodDay, you might have better luck in such situations if you actually pointed to the template guidance that I linked above, which in turn points to the RfC. Nobody is required to just take your word for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't remember or find the link to it. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will not add the successor if they’re not in yet. Thanks for sending the link. Pentock (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Trump edits

Please see current consensus before making any changes to the page. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Loeffler

Please see the thread Talk:Kelly Loeffler#Term of service at U.S. Senator regarding Kelly Loeffler's term of service as U.S. Senator. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson County

Hi. Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to Hudson County, New Jersey, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. I know you don't edit that often, but since you've accumulated over 800 edits since October 2019, you may have read or been told that Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add material without citations. If you continue to do this, it will be reverted, and you risk being blocked from editing. If there is a citation for this information in the article, please add it to the Infobox, or simply point it out, and I'll add it myselff. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re referring to me undoing your edit on the Hudson County page. After undoing it I went back and added citation.

If you’re referring to edits for pages similar to the one you’re talking about. I’ll go back and provide necessary citation. I apologize for not providing citation. Pentock (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I did not see that you saw my citation. But I’ll go back and fix all the other pages. As I did not provide citation on other county pages as well. Pentock (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling me out on not adding citation. I added missing citation on other pages that I edited recently. Pentock (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning all of your census edits...

1) Please don't delete any "estimate fields", instead clear the data on the right side of the equal "=" sign. The estimate fields will be reused in future years.

2) Anyone that updates to a newer census year needs to always add a reference to the official source of the new data too.

3) Please only link to official census on census.gov website. It is the official source for all USA census on Wikipedia. MSN is not an official census source.

4) The following are some tips to help you make 2020 census changes to county articles...

For Atlantic County, New Jersey, the following link to census.gov webpage is a source of the official census for this county, and the reference shows how to use it. Editors can also archive the information and add that to references too, but its a lot more work, so I excluded it from the following example. All other county links have a similar format, so you can substitute the lower-case name of other counties in place of "atlantic".

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/atlanticcountynewjersey/POP010220

<ref name="QF">{{cite web |title=QuickFacts; Atlantic County, New Jersey; Population, Census, 2020 & 2010 |url=https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/atlanticcountynewjersey/POP010220 |publisher=United States Census Bureau |access-date=August 22, 2021}}</ref>

5) The following is an example of how I updated counties in Kansas. I converted to new county infobox fields too. The "population_density_sq_mi" field must be hand calculated, by dividing the "2020 census" by the "area_land_sq_mi" field, then round to one decimal place. Also, notice how all of the estimate fields still exist, but the contents on the right side of the equals is empty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riley_County,_Kansas&type=revision&diff=1039650018&oldid=1031667935&diffmode=source

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made it easy for you above, yet you added bare a reference instead. Please reference all county articles properly and restore all of the estimate fields that you deleted! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantic_County,_New_Jersey&type=revision&diff=1040166573&oldid=1040158306&diffmode=source

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text Regarding Sweeney

Hi, you just removed a section I wrote, because you considered it to be “too much unnecessary info”. Could you make sure other sections of that article get removed for the same reason. Let me give you a hand, last sentence in the “header”: “ Sweeney is frequently described as a political power broker in New Jersey politics, and identifies as a moderate and a fiscal conservative.” If that’s not to much unnecessary info, what is ? Fouc the Great (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing that on other Wikipedia article from other politicians like Donald Trump. All other politicians that have lost lost re-election across Wikipedia articles have not had their election results describe as a big political blow.

Also Sweeney has not yet served out his term as senate president yet. We should at least wait until he is no longer the senate president.

And later on in the article it already mentions that he lost re-election in 2021. We don’t the article to be repetitive.

And political positions are used on other Wikipedia articles describing other politicians like Donald Trump. Pentock (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make and edit and not bring it up in the discussion? Also why make a passive aggressive comment towards me. Look I know your probably happy Sweeney lost. I’m happy too. I know shocker. But I just want to make that the article is ok in the way that it’s worded. Again, I’m just basing it on the articles of other politicians. Pentock (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits but I did mention where it was already mentioned that Sweeney lost that it was a major upset. Pentock (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you did there

EXTRA NOTE: Do not add "convicted felon"

to

EXTRA NOTE: Do not remove "convicted felon"

there is an RfC in progress

please stop soibangla (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add “convicted felon” until RfC is over

There is currently an RfC open on the article’s talk page, and we are waiting until that concludes to add “convicted felon” to the opening sentence of the article! Thanks! :) WxTrinity (talk to me!) 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protection user right removed

Hi, I have removed your ability to edit high profile articles protected by ECP for your edit warring on the Donald Trump article during an RfC and in violation of the editing rules there. The ability to edit high profiles is a privilege, and you can have it back when you're ready to respect our policies and processes. ~Awilley (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any edits on that page or any other page since May 31st. And I am not engaging in edit warring or causing a disruption on this or any other page. So I am a little confused as to why you took this action four days later.

But regardless, I’ll do better going forward and agree not to make certain edits on high-profile articles during an RfC. Since I understand that it’s a privilege and not a right. Pentock (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been a couple weeks. I’d like to have my ECP user rights restored. I take ownership and apologize for my conduct. Pentock (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reply? Pentock (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It looks like you've made a net total of maybe 4 article edits in the last 3 months. Can I ask which protected articles specifically you are wanting to edit that my removal of ECP is blocking? If it's the biographies of high profile certain US politicians you want to edit, I'm not sure I trust you with that yet since you apparently thought it was ok to edit war "convicted felon" into the first sentence of Donald Trump's biography. (That you were doing it during the RfC was only a fraction of the problem.)

If I'm not responding, you can "ping" me by linking my username with the {{ping}} template.

~Awilley (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! I appreciate it. I’m sorry that this is long.

I shouldn’t have let my political bias cloud my judgment. I know we all have political biases here. But we can’t let it cloud our judgment. I didn’t understand why convicted felon wasn’t in the intro because on other pages it is. After all Trump is a convicted felon. He just hasn’t been sentenced yet. But I understand now, that the debate was whether or not it’s appropriate to be in the intro.

One thing other thing I did on the page that I shouldn’t have. I changed someone’s sentence asking for editors to not include convicted felon until a consensus is reached. I changed it to ask for users not to remove convicted felon until a consensus is released. I know that none of us mentioned that before. But felt it was necessary in order for me to take full responsibility for my role in the edit war.

Another reason for the edits was because I am a little lazy. I have a hard time following long discussions on my phone. I should have used my computer instead because it would’ve been easier to do so. But I didn’t want to log in on my computer because I have a long password.

I apologize for letting my political bias cloud my judgment and my laziness. And promise not to edit when there’s an ongoing discussion. I promise not to edit war and vandalize a page again. It was not ok and it is not ok now to edit war a page. Please give me a second chance. It’s been months. Pentock (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]