Revision as of 18:13, 20 July 2011

If you're writing me a comment about an RfAr request or case that I'm acting as a clerk on, click here. I do move comments around when I see fit.

Archive info:
/Archive1 Start - Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 July 1 2005 - July 23 2006
/Archive3 July 24 2006 - Feb 25 2007
/Archive4 March 2007
/Archive5 April - July 2007
/Archive6 August - September 2007
/Archive7 October - November 2007
/Archive8 December 2007 - May 2008
/Archive9 ? - ?
RfAr related:

March 2007 April/May 2007 June/July 2007 August/September 2007 October 2007 - February 2008 March 2008 - ?

WP:RfAr related

ArbCom dispute

From what I gather, it seems to revolve around the supposed unreliability of a source I used. ". Can you go to "http://book.jqcq.com/product/30157.html", affirm this book is actually a chinese history book, and then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration and make a comment, to the effect whether it is a chinese history book or not(which from what I gather is the argument: it's not a chinese history book). This would help the dispute a lot. Thank you.

Teeninvestor (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Since you clerked that case, is it really correct that the Final Decision section is empty? Regards SoWhy 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff

ArbCom clerk template

I've created a template shortening the work for you, it is the same thing as used on your userpage, converted to template form. Cheers. —Sunday 00:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland article names & Mooretwin

fyi, User:Mooretwin, who is a party to this case, has been blocked for a week; see User_talk:SheffieldSteel#Intervening_with_Mooretwin. --John Vandenberg 03:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Sigh

I read his note, and you should know that as I responded to it and then you responded to me. So where did the doubt come in regarding that matter? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The courtesy blank, I think, is the full page blanked (as far as I know, I was not instructed otherwise; other arbitrators have mentioned that full-page blanked may be actions that needed to be taken). However, as they did not vote on that, I cannot perform that action without explicitly given instructions to do so. - Penwhale | 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, your edit summary implied that if I read this statement my edit wouldn't have occurred. Obviously I wasn't editing the page to enforce an arb ruling or any dictate from an individual arb. I'm not a clerk. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we were confused the first time around. :3 What NYB suggested is that instead of removing your comments and leave a diff, you add a note saying that you made the comment while it was named at the previous location. The courtesy blanking would apply to all the pages instead, not just your comments. I try not to change the meaning of the motions that are passed, however. (I don't want to have to judge accuracy so I C&P and fix minor things if needed) :3 - Penwhale | 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found NYB's comments confusing I should say, and he didn't explain when I asked him to elaborate (although you tried to, and thanks). I don't understand why people would kick up a fuss about removing a statement and then courtesy blank the whole page anyway. Well, I prolly do understand, but it doesn't make sense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Shrug* it's a bureaucracy that I try not to think too much; I have other things to worry about :-\ - Penwhale | 11:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Motions_post-closure

Where is/was this motion? I am aware of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Workshop#Motion_to_recognize_more_parties_and_rename_this_case but as far as I know this was completly ignored by the arbitrators.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The motion was passed on the main WP:RFAR page; the votes are archived to the talk page of the main case page (as is the usual case). - Penwhale | 13:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 2009

Celebrity Big Brother 2009 needs to have its protection changed to semi. The article is already badly out of date and logged in users need to be able to add the last few celebs who entered the house to the article. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, came here to say the same thing. Semi-protection should be fine, and perhaps shortening it could be considered too. There's a high level of vandalism at the moment because it's the first night of the new series, but it should be more manageable after a few days I imagine. Either way, semi-protection should be worth a shout. No autoconfirmed accounts were vandalising, I don't think. Dreaded Walrus 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you guys work out the editing on the talk page for the time being? I'm thinking of shorten the full-prot duration, but it's too prone to vandalism/revert warring at the moment. - Penwhale | 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC) That being said, if any admin feels that it's overly done or the duration needs to be changed and I'm not online, they can do so without consulting me. - Penwhale | 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

GMC

I had no involvement in the case, nor do I plan on involving myself in the case, so I felt I had no conflict of interest to run the CU. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just saying :P - Penwhale | 10:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:add and removing

Maybe you get some wikirule book I don't, but as far as I can tell there is no clear process or transparent rules for adding someone to a case. The guy who initially added me did so because he wanted me to participate. I did, then I withdrew because of some unfortunate comments. As there is no authoritive process for adding participants, I don't see why I'd have to initiate a tedious high attention process for reversing it. In reality there wouldn't be a problem if you had just left it (no evidence is directed against me and I'm not remedied or praised in the findings). and this is just pettiness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In reality, once a case is opened the parties are "frozen" and any removal needs to go through ArbCom permission. In this case, the removal of you from the list of parties made it impossible for us to alert you that the case closed (depending on who the clerk is he may or may not notify people not on the party list for closure). There are various precedents where people are named as party but no sanctions against them. - Penwhale | 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pettiness. You're making rules up as you're going along here. Obviously the parties aren't frozen if I removed myself. I brought this up with an arb (NYB); I'm hoping he'll help sort nonsense like this out, though I ain't holding my breath. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that I made this edit which the wording of that change are still in place today, about a year later. I made that change due to the fact that The Troubles RFAR case page was being edit-warred over. - Penwhale | 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence on a case page is "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat?

I think your action there was a bit... poorly thought out.

If I *were* grandstanding and threatening ArbCom, your action would be like throwing petrol on a fire, it'd hardly get me to calm down. And other than that, it doesn't seem to be any attempt to resolve the situation. Even if you do feel I'm threatening ArbCom, your comment was hardly the best way to address that, and came off as a passive-aggressive demand to 'shut up'.

In future, try to be more cautious when you make clerk actions like that. It makes everyone else's jobs harder when extra people wade in and try to heat up debate more. Clerks should clerk, your comment wasn't an action that could be accepted as a clerking duty, but seems to be an attempt to join in the debate. --Barberio (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If my comments came out as trying to join the debate, I apologize, as lately there have been enough issues surrounding ArbCom as well as the clerks that I'm slightly annoyed. That being said, asking the ArbCom to do something within a deadline almost never works was what I tried to say. - Penwhale | 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, an issue with ArbCom. Asking for something to be investigated, which the majority all seem to agree should be investigates, and asking for it to be investigated within three months, should not be considered an imposition, let alone a threat. --Barberio (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course this opinion may be biased, but I think posting a request asking them to do something with a deadline on the 1st day of the official transition won't help with winning other people over. :P - Penwhale | 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they should have taken a whole lot more time 'off' for transition then, rather than saying they'd be ready to work on 'day one'? --Barberio (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have read-access to arbcom-l, so I cannot tell you anything about what goes on in that discussion. Not to mention, there were a few people that didn't put on their arbitrator hat until Jan 1st and made no comments otherwise... - Penwhale | 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi, I saw your comments on my RfA. I'm just curious by what you meant about taking into consideration what people said. Do you mean I should try again in a few months? Enigma 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I heard that the b'crat may use judgment call on your RfA, but if that doesn't happen, most people have mentioned that they could change their mind after a while, so I wouldn't give up. - Penwhale | 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Misplaced Pages Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Misplaced Pages Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hiya, I recently posted a notification of the ArbCom enforcement case at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. However, a couple editors are disagreeing with the notification, and edit-warring about it. The most recent change is this one. I don't want to get into a lot of back and forth here, so could you please take a look at it? Thanks, --Elonka 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping so you're not guilty of edit warring is unimpressive, Elonka. How dare you accuse me of edit warring. I was quite clear in my one and only edit, which was to remove your "rationale" which is highly questionable and poisons the well. I have no intention of edit warring over that, but stand by my opinion that you should remove that yourself, as you are far too involved to be taking on yourself the role of ArbCom enforcer. KillerChihuahua 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

She asked me for my opinion because of the fact that the page that you are edit warring over is an RFAR page. KC, your edit actually removed the notification LINK which are required to be present on all notifications and logs. THEN I looked at the revert-warring that you guys had and made a decision that he is qualified for the notification-- which, as you very well know of, is not a restriction. I'll say this here: I independently endorse the notification. That enough for you, KC? - Penwhale | 18:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the link was an error on my part; thank you for correcting it. Perhaps you have misunderstood. There are two issues, neither of which is OrangeMarlin being notified. One is that Elonka is not appropriate person to notify, as she is heavily involved. The second is her decision to place her "rationale" or reasons or what-have-you. While this is not something to which I would generally object per se, plese note that no other admin leaves these little notes about their rationale; they content themselves with listing the notice. It is poisoning the well to add that. I am perfectly willing to accept that you disagree. However, my removal - once - of her biased opinion of an editor with whom she has been in conflict for some time now does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute an edit war. You somehow have managed to lump me in with "you guys" and decided that I'm edit warring. I object, most sincerely and strongly, to your characterization of me thusly. I hope this clarifies matters. If not, reply here - I do watch pages where I have recently posted. KillerChihuahua 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. The dispute between the two of you is something that I will remain neutral about. About the rationales, some restriction notices have included rationale -- see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#List_of_users_placed_under_supervision -- in particular my warning to User:Moosh88. Granted, majority of the administrators choose not to provide rationale in the log, however. - Penwhale | 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. I am not certain what you mean by "dispute" - I am not involved in the dispute about the pseudoscience stuff - I have not edited there. My disagreement with Elonka is one I share with several others and it is simply that she is far too involved in the content disputes on pseudoscience articles to be in any way "uninvolved". KillerChihuahua 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, but like I said above, I do not feel qualified to comment on that issue. - Penwhale | 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, saw that, I didn't mean to sound as though I were asking you to - merely stating the nature of my disagreement. KillerChihuahua 19:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's based on a false premises. If Elonka had a case, she'd go to ANI or Arbcom for support. It's insulting, and I consider it a personal, uncivil attack by an involved administrator. I suggest you read everyone's opinion her vendetta. It's pretty widespread what everyone thinks of her attack on me. OrangeMarlin 18:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I independently looked at some of the diffs she provided me, and I agreed with her on the notification itself, without commenting on other actions of Elonka. I'd like to remind you that it is by no means a restriction. There are several cases where all editors are under notification, if I believe, but that by no means hinders it. I commend you in your work, but some of the methods do seem a little aggressive, OM. - Penwhale | 18:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Query

Wheel warring? Please see my question on Rfar. KillerChihuahua 16:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed wording to "edit-warring" instead a few days ago. You may have missed that. I forgot to mention that on your talk page earlier >.< - Penwhale | 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Speaking for myself. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008 This box: view • talk • edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Misplaced Pages Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping?

Are you allright, Penwhale? You've gone suddenly quiet. — Coren  00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not THAT quiet... but 3 math classes will do that to you sometimes. - Penwhale | 03:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki ban help

Hello, My name is John and last night I tried to create an account from my house and it said I was banned Jan 27th until April 27th. I was just hoping you could help me since I have never used wiki before.

It said I (IP 98.231.22.5) was banned by Nishkid64 who gave the reason

CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively. This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse. In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please follow these instructions. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Users: If you already have an account in good standing, you may request IP block exemption to bypass this block. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

: .

I was just hoping you could help me figure this out. Maybe someone was using my internet? I'm not sure, but I was hoping to see the incident that happened. I am sending this from my account I created at school (nflmockdraftaces), but it is in reference to my home IP which is 98.231.22.5

I'm new and not sure what to do. Help! :)

Thanks for your help, John nflmockdraftaces (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Penwhale's Day!

User:Penwhale has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Penwhale's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Penwhale! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. (March 4th for you) — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area Last: 01/18/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Misplaced Pages Loves Art and upcoming projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for exercising thoughtful judgment in a difficult-to-parse situation. May I join you in hoping that your participation becomes the kind of sturdy bridge which this dispute might need? --Tenmei (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Investigating what "screened" means or implies

As you may or may not know, Teeninvestor has appeared to accord great weight to your imprimatur in the context of a minor ArbCom case.

At Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence, a number of the claims presented by Teeninvestor at Evidence presented by Teeninvestor appears to be over-reaching. In that context, there are some questions which would help me clear up any misunderstandings which still linger.

You may not know that Teeninvestor mentioned you specifically in his/her evidence sub-section "Alleged misuse of sources," stating:

• "I have provided the source, with full bibliographic information, and a link which demonstrates what I said it would be- a Chinese history book. This was confirmed by user:Penwhale."

In the context created by these two sentences, I am obliged to ask you to clarify, please.

1. Question: Am I correct in identifying the Statement by uninvolved Penwhale as the one and only substantive contribution you identify in the context of this ArbCom case?

If there something else which I have over-looked, please provide the link which will enable me to rectify my mistake.

You may not know that Teeninvestor mentioned you specifically in his/her evidence sub-section "Screened by User:PericlesofAthens and User:Penwhale"

• "In addition, the source has been screened by the two above users and the information as well, and they have shown the information to be perfectly correct as well as the history book being what I said it is: a history book .... The above two users have stated the information of the source is correct and the source was presented with correct bibliographic information as to allow the reader to verify the source ...."

In the context created by these few sentences, I am obliged to ask you to clarify, please.

2. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... the source has been screened ...." Did you, in fact, "screen" the book? If so, what did the term "screen" mean specifically in that context?

3. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... the information ...." Did you, in fact, "screen" the information? If so, what did the term "screen" mean specifically in that context?

4. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... shown the information to be perfectly correct ...." Did you, in fact, "evaluate" the information? If so, what did the phrase "shown the information to be perfectly correct" mean specifically in that context?

5. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... the history book being what I said it is: a history book." Did you, in fact, "evaluate" the book? If so, what did the phrase " the history book being what I said it is: a history book" mean specifically in that context?

With all due respect, I believe you are only able respond to Question 1 and Question 5. I would guess that your inability to respond similarly to Questions 2, 3 and 4 will demonstrate that these are examples of over-reaching.

In this context, I would appreciate any constructive comments you might be willing to offer.

Thank you for the time you choose to invest in ArbCom matters. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I shall try to answer your questions one at a time.

• 1. The statement you linked above is the only edit that I contributed to the case. (I probably will cross-post this over to the case page later, though.)
• 2. I did not screen the book in any way. What I did was merely translated the page linked at the time. The page is a description from a Chinese on-line bookstore.
• 3. My statement posted needs to be taken as literally as possible; the information I provided was merely information gained from translating the description of the on-line bookstore.
• 4. And to be specific: I did not look at any text of the book itself; I cannot judge whether it is actually a history book without actually looking at the book.

So, yes, I think he over-reached in that regard. And note that in the information I provided I specifically said that there was no author listed (which puzzled me). - Penwhale | 01:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A reputable publisher

The credibility of a disputed source is a central issue in this ArbCom case; and this book is:

Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House. ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001.

As you may recall, Teeninvestor's "evidence" here states:

"The source itself is a history book published in China from a reputable publisher in that country. Its authors have published several similar books before(this is is an annual renewal/publication, I have the 1998 version)."

My superficial efforts to find out more about this book and its authors/editors were not inconclusive. A cursory effort to discover general information about the publisher revealed sufficient details to create a very minimal stub article -- see Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House. I did not encounter the kind of critical information which would help me or anyone else assess the credibility of the claim that this book was published by a "reputable publisher" in China.

Teeninvestor noted my work, posting the following message at Talk:Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House#Uh, Tenmei:

Uh, Tenmei, you have the wrong publishing house.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.haotushu.com/press/61/ List of books.

http://www.bookschina.com/publish/204/ Another list of books

http://www.ilucking.com/press/neimenggurenminchubanshe/ Introduction to this publisher(one of the oldest in PRC).

http://www.nmgrmcbs.com/ Website.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that this diff was intended to be provocative in some way; but I don't quite get the point. My inclination is simply to ignore whatever it was that Teeninvestor had in mind when deciding to post links in Chinese.

I wonder if you can discern anything in these links which may have something to do with proving that the Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House is a "reputable publisher"? If so, then I would guess that this kind of information could be helpful in the ArbCom case.

Unrelated to ArbCom, Teeninvestor apparently sees a glaring mistake in this stub article. If you can help correct whatever flaws are obvious in this stub, that trivial edit would be helping to improve the quality of our encyclopedia-making project.

In conclusion, if there was some kind of assistance Teeninvestor and I should have sought from you as an "uninvolved Chinese-literate editor," please consider this a formal request for your appropriate contribution to the dispute resolution process ...? --Tenmei (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Teeninvestor is right in this perspective that you do indeed have mixed up the two publishers. The URL to nmgrmcbs.com is the correct address for the publisher. According to the website, it was the first established publisher in Inner Mongolia in 1951. If I have to make a call on this, it's about as reputable as Random House as I would imagine. The stub needs to be changed.. I just am in the midst of finals and do not have too much time to correct it. - Penwhale | 01:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan and Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area Last: 09/13/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library and Misplaced Pages Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Misplaced Pages articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game is currently up for deletion, along with this and 94 other Price is Right games

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty

I have engaged a procedure for amending Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.

• See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty.

I construe the process to require me to notify you; but of course, you are not required to do anything. --Tenmei (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Boo!

Psst...

Psst¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip thread

I obviously have no objections against closing that thread on the clerks noticeboard, which indeed wasn't likely to lead anywhere useful. I strongly object against your dismissive and arrogant tone there though. You are mistaken if you think I have a "dispute" with Ikip. I'm doing my job as an admin here, which in this case happens to involve making sure Ikip doesn't get to hound JM, and I would appreciate if I could do my job unhindered by snide remarks from the peanut gallery.

As for acting as an administrator on Arbcom-related pages, if what you are trying to say is that Arbcom pages are off-limit to normal disciplinary enforcement by admins, I disagree: Arbcom pages are not outside the normal wiki-world, and you clerks have no monopoly on watching conduct there. If user A is caught engaging in disruptive behaviour X somewhere else and gets warned off with a block warning for it by admin B, and then goes to an unrelated Arbcom page (where B is uninvolved) to continue behaviour X there, admin B will block him for it. I would think twice about it if it was in a case where A is himself a party or defendant, but that wasn't the case here – it was just a motion which had nothing to do with Ikip himself, and I can hardly imagine Arbcom would have taken that as an opportunity to take the scrutiny of Ikip's behaviour in its own hands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, there have been several rare cases (which I can't name off my head right now) that editors not named as parties were sanctioned. Of course, this is a different case. Keeping in mind that I have not (and cannot currently) look into the matter of the dispute at hand. The problem lies in a few places:

1. Ikip believes that your warning is overboard. Looking at the ANI thread that you formally warned Ikip, I bring to your attention that he was not the initiator of that thread (and I note that there is no intervening comments on that thread between the posts by you two.)
2. Ikip brings this matter to ArbCom clerks, as it affects his intention of joining discussion here. Without looking at the merit of your warning, this isn't a situation that we clerks can normally resolve dispute. (The warning, which I personally consider to be effectively a topic ban, is normally only given out by community and/or ArbCom.) As such, the best appeal situation for Ikip is definitely not the Clerks' noticeboard; he needs to go to AN(/I) or ArbCom directly.
3. Of course, the fact that Ikip does not keep discussion threads open on his talk page makes it difficult for a substantive discussion to be going on there either.

I know you're trying to do your admin job here - we all are (remember clerks don't really have any more power than other admins apart from arbitration processes). I personally think, though, that your warning may have been overboard without a formal discussion on it (what I'm looking for is evidence that majority of community agrees with the fact that he needs to be diverted away from J.M). I personally feel that decisions related to restricting participation in any kind dispute resolution should only be done via community input (or ArbCom dictation), and as such I unfortunately cannot agree with you restraining him on the motions page. Keeping in mind that ArbCom normally prefers evidence transparency, so I really think that part of the restriction would be hard to enforce and that portion makes the situation worse than it should be. Regarding your point in the second paragraph: normally only case clerks monitor conduct issues on particular cases; for a motion like this there isn't any - i.e. ArbCom has the final say on those pages.

P.S. That's what I think right now; I have 2 final exams and a 10~15p paper due within next 36 hours. If my responses are delayed, I apologize in advance. - Penwhale | 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(refactored) Penwhale, thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you know, since the arcom !voting is now almost complete, you no longer have to be involved in this dispute as an arbcom clerk.

Misplaced Pages is a big place. I sincerely, deeply hope this other editor at issue and I do not cross paths again, so I will never have any reason to comment about this editor again.

Thank you again. I hope you have a good week.

Last week was wonderful for us. We just got pre-authorization on our first home this weekend, with a big back yard for our rat terrier and 20 pound cat, so we are estatic. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• For the record: ArbCom clerks are not elected but rather chosen and approved by ArbCom. - Penwhale | 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I was not clear, when I said "voting", I was refering to the Jack Merridew arbcom about continuing his mentorship. Ikip (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Give your Garfield-weight cat my greetings along with a few pieces of catnip. - Penwhale | 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

" does not bait me or you--he baits those susceptible to it, and is, I must admit, very skilled at this"

FYI: User_talk:Zinc5000#Intellitar_Page

Future perfect is involved in helping criticize a newbies article which I userfied. Jack Merridew came first, followed by Future perfect.

What concerns me is that Future Perfect appears to be very aware of Jack Merridew's edit history, my edits to this newbies page first, Jack Merridew hounding me (following me) to this article, but his only actions on this page are to criticize the newbie some more, helping Jack Merridew try to bait me.

This is prima fascia evidence of Future Perfect being an involved editor, so any blocks by him against me by him, hopefully will be treated the same as User:A Man In Black was when he blocked me. Future will lose his adminship.

The worst part of all this is how this newbie is being treated. Two editors with an agenda against me are tearing apart the contributions of this editor. Ikip 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring

Thank you very much for your assistance in properly formatting my response in the arbitration case that I am involved in. As a fairly inexperienced editor I am still learning the esoterica involved in many proceedures and help like this is greatly appreciated. Rapier1 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

re Giano at ArbCom

Your supplementary comment has appeared under someone else's... You might wish to place it in your section, unless a Clerk has already done so by the time you read this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC) ：Thanks. Just saw it.　- Penwhale | 01:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship committee

Penwhale--
This unexpected pair of questions may be interesting, but not easy.

(1) Would you consider becoming a part of a "mentorship committee" which would seek ArbCom approval?

(2) While declining to be named among the offical "mentors" seeking ArbCom approval, would you consider becoming an advisor or consultant to the members of my "mentorship committee", if one does develop.

At present, there is no committee; and indeed, I have to consider that this kind of unconventional grouping may not evolve. As you will know, no one has agreed to participate, but some are considering what to do.

In effect, I'm asking you and others to consider whether this might be more of an opportunity than a burden. --Tenmei (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always offered to help, but I'm limited by my availability. Once school resumes my editing rate will drop again. I'm not sure how well I can help in this case. (It doesn't make sense for me to directly mentor you either because of COI issues.) - Penwhale | 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As a gesture of recognition and appreciation, I reiterate a familiar rhetorical question: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" -- Analects of Confucius, Part 1, "Learning" --Tenmei (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Copyediting

Penwhale, I am going to attempt a slow copyedit of the Arbitration guide "maintained by clerks" et al. for readability. Just FYI, so as not to do any damage. Let me know if it gets too edgy, ok? Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, but post on clerks' board too. - Penwhale | 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Misplaced Pages Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Misplaced Pages Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Misplaced Pages Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

socks

i am being accused of sock pupertary, can any one pls help, i think i contact you with my case... pls review and help, thanxAlxknight (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Misplaced Pages Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program and Misplaced Pages Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

Our next Misplaced Pages NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Misplaced Pages articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring question

Please examine Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Japan. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? --Tenmei (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi Penwhale. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

This message is being sent to inform you of a Misplaced Pages picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: 2011 Draft

Thank you for doing that 100% in line with wiki policies and guidelines, and the definition of that tag! --Lvhis (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock

this edit reminded me of a report I want to file about Asad. May I? Chesdovi (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Prefer you seek other people's input, as I have no knowledge of the area at all whatsoever. - Penwhale | 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, as long as you have no problem with me filing a report. Chesdovi (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT a "I don't see a problem with you filing a report" statement, but more of a "You should ask someone else whether you should file that request or not" statement. - Penwhale | 09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as I know the only problem you seem to have is your knowledge of Islam, not that I am precluded from filing reports. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ただいま。

Hello there. Any articles you want to work on? Mainly anime/manga but I am open to suggestions. -- Cat 09:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

... Wow o.O You are back to the realm of the living, right? - Penwhale | 09:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... Undead maybe :p I will finally have time for them wikis I think. Although my schedule is as always quite hectic. -- Cat 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for a protected page

I made an edit protected for that protected page, and listed my reasons. Could you please take a look there and kindly give some help? Thank you. The mediation on the dispute is closed with failure to resolve the dispute, i.e. the dispute is still ongoing. --Lvhis (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)