User talk:Wheresthatpenguin

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Wheresthatpenguin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! (World556 (☎) 11:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21st December 2010 - Returned to Wikipedia after couple months break. Reactivated User Name. Thanks wheresthatpenguin 21.12.10 at 9.32am(GMT)

Proposed deletion of Melissa Greenwood[edit]

The article Melissa Greenwood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and no indication of meeting WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fortnightly Rubbish Collections[edit]

The article Fortnightly Rubbish Collections has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This seems a bit too POV simply not an encyclopedic topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Wheresthatpenguin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Amber McWilliams for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amber McWilliams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber McWilliams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sheldybett (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY FROM WHERESTHATPENGUIN - I used to donate monthly to wikipedia. Its idiots like you and the person who deleted my Amber McWilliams article that led me to cancel my regular donation last year. Potentially a great encyclopedia, let down by its editors - 19.3.20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthatpenguin (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "Wheresthatpenguin". I have only just seen your message to me, even though you posted it over a year ago. Thank you for expressing your concerns. I shall give you some information and advice relating to the points you raised, in the hope that it may help to clarify a few things for you, but before I do so I shall let you know how you can let other editors know that you have posted messages for them.

There is a mechanism for alerting other editors to messages you have posted. There are several variations, but as good a way of doing it as any is as follows. At the top of your message type {{ping|name of the user you wish to alert}}, so for example if you wish to alert me you should type {{ping|JBW}}. At the end of your message type four tildes, that is to say ~~~~. The editor in question will then be automatically alerted to your message. (In fact you should always put four tildes at the end of any post you make on a talk page or any other discussion page, as the software will automatically replace it with a signature, which not only indicates who posted the message, but also has a link to your talk page, which may be helpful to other editors who wish to contact you. However, if you are using "ping" to alert another editor to a message then it is essential to include the four tildes, as otherwise the ping won't work.)

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policy that article content should be cited to reliable sources then you are perfectly free to try to get the policy changed. However, if you succeed in getting it changed, and allowing anyone to post information on their own say-so, the problem will be that there will be nothing to stop anyone from posting invalid information, whether out of ignorance or malice. In an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit it is, unfortunately, inevitable that there will be people who add incorrect information to articles, and the policy of requiring citations to reliable sources is one of our main protections against that. As I have already said, if you don't agree with that policy, and think we should start allowing anyone to post any claims they like without providing supporting evidence, then you are free to try to get the policy changed, but it is as well that you are aware of the reasons for the policy before you try to get it changed. In the meanwhile, as long as the policy requiring citations to sources is in existence, you should comply with that policy, whether you personally agree with it or not. (There are Wikipedia policies which I disagree with, but I try always to comply with those policies.)

I see that over a period of somewhat more than ten months you have several times added the same, or substantially the same, content to an article, which has been repeatedly removed by other editors. This practice of repeatedly reverting to one's own preferred version of article content, known as edit-warring, is generally considered unhelpful. Instead, one should explain one's reasons for preferring that version, and be willing to discuss the issues involved, with a view to trying to reach agreement. (Editors who persist in edit-warring may be blocked from editing by administrators.)

No matter how strongly you feel that another editor is mistaken, it is a good idea to express your disagreement in a civil way, rather than accusing that editor of being an "idiot", for several reasons. Firstly, I hope that you will prefer to help maintain a pleasant atmosphere for other editors to work in. Secondly, even if you don't care how other editors feel, in your own interests it is better to encourage others to have a positive attitude to you, as that way they are more likely to consider your point of view sympathetically, so that you have a better chance of getting them to agree to your preferences, rather than just dismissing what you say. Thirdly, if you are seen as persistently violating Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks then you are likely to be blocked form editing by an administrator, and any edits you have made are then likely to be reverted.

I hope that some or all of these comments my be helpful to you in clarifying some aspects of how Wikipedia works, but if you have any questions about any of what I have said then please feel very welcome to contact me and ask.

Finally, as you probably know, some other editors have expressed the opinion that content you have added to an article is unsuitable as it is trivia, but that is a matter on which I am expressing no opinion at all. I am just attempting to help clarify for you issues regarding Wikipedia policies, in an administrative capacity, and I do not intent to get involved in issues concerning differing opinions as to what content is suitable in articles. JBW (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning for adding unsourced and pointless trivia[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Having been told that you would be blocked from editing if you continued in the same way, you chose to go ahead and be be blocked. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter. You continued both to add unsourced content and to edit-war while being well aware of the relevant policies. Also, I strongly recommend that you don't switch between editing from your account and editing without logging in again, because doing so may mislead other editors into thinking that two different editors are independently making similar edits, and I trust you would not wish to do that. Even worse, some editors might possibly get the impression that you are deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking that a different person is editing, and if that happens you are likely to be blocked from editing for a much longer period than two weeks, which is the time for which you are currently blocked. If you believe there are good reasons why unblocking you before the two weeks are up will benefit the project, and if you are willing to undertake to comply with Wikipedia policies in future, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JBW (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]