User talk:Pensil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:B60-00036.jpg

Welcome! Hello, Pensil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

-

-

-

-

-

- I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!


-

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of R. Winston Morris

+

[edit] Edwin Lutyens

-

A tag has been placed on R. Winston Morris requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

+ Hi Pensil, and welcome. You placed a {{peerreview}} tag at the top of the Edwin Lutyens article. Tags such as these should be put on the talk page. Were you requesting the article to be reviewed? If so, you can either follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review or drop me a line if you want further help. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 11:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

- If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -MBK004 04:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ron Paul. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Lutyens

Hi Pensil, and welcome. You placed a {{peerreview}} tag at the top of the Edwin Lutyens article. Tags such as these should be put on the talk page. Were you requesting the article to be reviewed? If so, you can either follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review or drop me a line if you want further help. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 11:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

[edit] February 2008

  1. Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from North American Union. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. The recent edit you made to North American Union constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
  3. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
    The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to North American Union, you will be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Your unexplained blanking out of sourced content, apparently to push a POV, constitutes vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued deletion of material. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kralizec! (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have not violated the pillars of wikipedia... I am perfectly allowed to delete material as it can be reverted and is actually encouraged by wikipedia. I didn't know about the english versions...its just what the spell check recomended"

Decline reason: "You're allowed to delete material, when you are doing so to improve the encyclopedia— which isn't what you were doing. You have been warned about not doing it again, and you persisted. Use the time you are blocked to read up on Wikipedia policies. — Coren (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Please do not change versions of the English

In a recent edit to the page Family Life International (New Zealand), you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

The recent edit you made to BigShoulders Digital Video Production constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. The Helpful One (Review) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi there, it appeared to be vandalism so I reverted it. Sorry for any confusion. --The Helpful One (Review) 13:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Leon Mobley. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Will (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked, again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued blanking of articles. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Barely out of a vandalism block and back at it again? If you persist after this block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. — Coren (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "being punished more than once for the same item. I have not violated the 5 pillars which encourages users to be bold. I have not broken the 3 revert rule nor added non encyclopedic material"

Decline reason: "This was exactly the thing that got you blocked the first two times, and yet you went and did it again. When the block expires, please limit yourself to constructive edits. —Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

The link from Case above only happened once and was an accident. When were the other times? Do you have examples?

I not sure what those things were? I constantly try to achieve neutral, accurate, content on WP. I have no agenda. My edits are to improve these articles. Everyone has the same pull here. Do you disagree? I would like specific examples as to why my actions are vandalism.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

In response to your email quoting the same verse; I should point out that by repeating actions which you were warned were improper and then quoting policy as an excuse is viewed badly. Assuming good faith is a guiding principle here, but an assumption can be overturned by behavior. At this point, I feel you have exhausted this assumption entirely so I would recommend you become more cautious in your future edits. — Coren (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I not sure what those things were? I constantly try to achieve neutral, accurate, content on WP. I have no agenda. My edits are to improve these articles. Everyone has the same pull here. Do you disagree? I would like specific examples as to why my actions are vandalism."

Decline reason: "Blanking a page for the purpose of having it reverted is vandalism. You've been warned repeatedly and blocked before. As Coren has said, community patience is growing thin and your next block will in all likelihood be indefinite. Use the time to actually read the guidelines and when the block expires, make constructive contributions that do not damage the work of others (e.g. blanking). -MBK004 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have not been blocked for this before. I have read the guidelines. The warnings came but no activity was done after the first warning. Others saw the warning looked at the alleged violation and warned again or added the block. Look at my contributions and decide for yourself whether or not there is a pattern of vandalism. An indefinite block will result in a full arbitration which no one wants and is very negative and disruptive. Admins need to focus on editing more than policing."

Decline reason: "Blanking pages with no explanation is clear vandalism, and looking at your block log, you have been blocked twice before, on Dec 1 2007 and Feb 29 2008. That the most recent was only 4 days ago shows me that you have not learned. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "unfair blocking. Blocking is to avoid threats to WP. Not for punishment"

Decline reason: "Blanking pages with no explanation is clear vandalism, you have been blocked twice before, sorry but no. Blocking is also to protect wikipedia from vandalism. Tiptoety talk 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Four months of warnings

Here is an overview of your disruptive editing since you became a registered editor on November 30:

  • November 2007
    • [1] copyvio warning for R. Winston Morris
    • [2] after your copyvio article was deleted, you re-created it and were subsequently warned to stop deletion the speedy-deletion tags
    • [3] another copyvio warning for the now thrice deleted R. Winston Morris article
  • December 2007
    • [4] warning against recreating the R. Winston Morris article which has now been deleted four times in a mere 35 minutes
    • [5] yet another copyvio warning for the recreated article
    • [6] warning against recreating the five times deleted R. Winston Morris article
    • [7] blocked for persistent copyright violations
    • [8] NPOV warning for removing the text "bottom shelf" and replaced it with "delicious" on the Old Crow article [9]
    • [10] warned against blanking [11] the Still Searching for Soul article
  • February 2008
    • your blanking [12] of the Jesse Fibiger article was reverted, but somehow you did not receive any warnings
    • [13] warned against deleting [14] sourced content from Ron Paul (it should be noted that deleting over 8300 bytes of text including multiple citations is obvious vandalism)
    • [15] warned about again deleting [16] sourced content from the North American Union article (deleting a sentence with that is properly sourced with three citations is obvious vandalism)
    • [17] warned again for the exact same vandalism [18]
    • [19] fourth warning against content-deletion vandalism [20] on this article
    • [21] blocked for yet again deleting [22] sourced content
    • [23] warned against needlessly switching [24] articles between UK and US English
  • March 2008

By my count, that makes fourteen warnings and three blocks in less than 100 days. Considering all of your disruptive behavior, how are you not a threat to the project? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halo award

thanks? Arthurian Legend (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:42fd 1.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:42fd 1.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shinerunner (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Tornado sm010.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Tornado sm010.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Nopca-page.gif.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Nopca-page.gif.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

I would be interested in adopting you. Just let me know. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palfrey

This soundbite has been deleted. Please come to the talk page and see why, even if it was not deleted, it isn't considered approrpriate for the page. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem -- I can see why you thought it relevant. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, so don't sweat it. Your contributions to the page and the patience you have demonstrated indicates to me that you will be a valuable editor. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palfrey assessment

I noticed that you changed the article's rating from "Start" to "B". Typically, page editors don't make that evaulation but instead request an assessment, in this case, through the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. If in fact you went through these procedures and made the change as a member of the bio project, then I apologize. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)