User talk:Penyulap

Do you have a concern about this editor ? try the new 'Penyulap Ombudsman Commission' (P.O.C.)

If you are having a dispute with this editor, you can make a complaint to the P.O.C. All complaints to the P.O.C. must be made by email here for your privacy. The P.O.C. Consists of Thomas Moore, PALZ9000, and Penyulap. To prove the commission is completely fair and impartial, three additional editors who are not Panyulap, are chosen by Penyulap to serve on the P.O.C. If you don't receive acknowledgement or a response to your complaint within 12 to 18 months, feel free to send a reminder by email to the commission. If you find yourself blocked for the duration of the complaint, do not be alarmed, this is standard procedure and it's for your protection.

Days blocked with no policy specified and no diffs given
4500

Block - clarification required

TPS and so on, in order to be able to move forwards from this stalemate we (and Pen) need some real clarification on what the current indef block is actually for. No answers can be given until the question is clear.

So, please, pretty please, can someone lay out, clearly, with diffs, precisely what the current block is for, so that we can at least make some attempt to address the situation as it is, as of today. It should be clear that any unblock request which relies on an editor addressing (or at least discussing) the "issues involved in the block" cannot be done unless those issues are quite clear. At this stage (170+ days on) , it seems that nobody knows exactly what it is that needs to be addressed.

No progress can be made without this vital input. Pesky (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Was it this one? If so, it seems to have been done on the basis that Pen needed to take a break for a while, as health and stress issues were getting on top of him. Is that it? What exactly needs to happen now? The stuff which led up to that burnout is now old history. Pesky (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What a dogs breakfast. That contains a s*load of comments from the precise person I brought the SPI against, which means I can't discuss it, from the on-wiki comments alone, it's obvious why people don't want to investigate spaceflight-related socks, despite any moron being ABLE to spot it, if they were allowed to, or cared to. Basically any random passer-by could see the whole freaking thing. Putting my list of incredibly unusual blocks and blah blah blah what's the use. You just get blocked in the ass for making a complaint. Worm is the one who outright threatened me on my own talkpage not to say a word about obvious socks, and Courcelles is the one who blocked me for making a complaint to the ombudsman. You just get blocked in the ass for making any legitimate complaint about certain people. Penyulap ☏ 12:52, 19 Jan 2013 (UTC)

I did notice the comments from others ;P However, not everyone can put everything together as well as you would be able to, so get cracking with history, diffs, which of the other commenters have since been blocked / banned / TBanned, etc. I think you may possibly have misconstrued Worm's post about not commenting on socks, though I'm not sure (and please don;t pick me up on it - I'm quite happy to be wrong!) User:Mir Almaat 1 S1 (the one whose edits were primarily to your talk page, yes, that one ...) seems to have a rather odd contribs history. Stopped contributing 29 September, started again ... ... ... today. Maybe he will noticed that this has been noticed, but any input on this situation from Mir is going to look mighty suspicious if he's only started up again precisely because this situation may possibly be able to be resolved. I'm more than sure that Worm is astute enough to pick up on this if anything comes of it. It does, however, mean that Mir's current IP addy is no longer "stale" ;P Pesky (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding: Everybody (at least all those with some sense) will now be looking at the Mir account, and (bearing in mind what was pretty clear before) will probably be coming to the conclusion that it's more than likely you were absolutely right. An editor who posts more to your talk than anywhere else, disappears totally within a short time after you're indeffed, and then magically reappears and starts contributing again as soon as it appears we may be making some progress, isn't making themselves look very good. Of course, it may be pure coincidence. You know what I'm like with the think nicely thing. I don't think this is coincidence – and some folks may sit up and take a little more notice. As Jehochman once said: "We have some master baiters in here ...". ;P Pesky (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I've dropped a heads-up to this on Worm's talk page; it's not proof conclusive that Mir was gradually (and intentionally) baiting you to drive you round the bend and cause trouble, it's strong circumstantial evidence of same ... (and yes, even though everyone says we should never rise to the bait, all the intelligent of us also realise that a concerted campaign to make an editor "lose it" is definitely mitigating circumstances). It all helps the rest of us see a little more clearly into what you were seeing, and telling us about, months ago. At least we can see him now. And CU's have a nice fresh-smelling IP addy to sniff at. Who knows what may turn up? Pesky (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Artist's impression of The Block

The Block is believed to look something like this:

No-one knows what The Block is for, but it is believed to be some kind of tool used by, the "Lords of the Galaxy" — omniscient, immortal, and capable of travelling at great speeds. This encourages less intelligent beings to develop, providing that they can acknowledge their own short-comings for the satisfaction of others.

Oh my God, it's full of shit

— Keir Dullwit, wackypedia, a spaced oddity

Thom2002 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:) Penyulap ☏ 00:07, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

another impression of the block Penyulap ☏ 18:10, 23 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Sweet dream

This one is for Little olive oil, but I haven't finished it I figure. There is a lot I could do besides remember to put the name in. I think I'll add extra chocolates into the spaces and maybe change the shape too, if it keeps my interest long enough. Penyulap ☏ 00:07, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't have a good reputation when it comes to leaving chocolate alone. Thank you Penyulap. What a tasty and amazing barnstar. Maybe if I hide it on my user page I won't be temped to eat it.(olive (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC))

Hehehe it might need higher security than gold. People aren't as tempted by gold compared to chocolate, which reminds me I have to go and get some chocolate. It's very hard to chocolate when you're talking about chocolate, it melts your concentration. Then you can't concernlate on what you're trying to do. Penyulap ☏ 22:05, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't see this message until now. :O( I've never let a lack of concentration get in the way of eating chocolate. We have to have our priorities straight, after all.(olive (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Oooh, I always feel bad to catch myself eating chocolate without noticing, because it means getting all of the bad with none of the good. I do often eat dessert first, like it is often recommended in cartoons and such, because you never know. what will happen. Penyulap ☏ 02:59, 20 Mar 2013 (UTC) 02:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Breaking news

In May 2012, for the first time ever in Wikipedia history, the article count went negative all thanks to me (moi) and my 8,250+ articles deleted... Penyulap, sorry I couldn't reply to your email, I don't know if it came to you, but I wanted to speak to you on here. I want to thank you so much for that award, it's an honour and it is the best award I ever had on here. I am off college with bronchitis so I can be on here any time, if you need me... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I thought the decision was stupid and is pretty typical behavior of the user who suggested they be deleted. Its just an example of laziness. I think its also pretty stupid since all you have to do to find unreferenced and much more poorly written articles is hit the Random article link a couple times. Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The link goes to a link that is wrong, I think the second degree link should be pointing here.

Personally it's not the mistake or whether the articles were right or wrong that matters. In aircraft investigation the kind of people who don't openly and honestly admit and talk about everything that happened end up killing hundreds more. People who can say so, and visibly learn from their mistakes are the only people who can be trusted. Companies that seek to cover-up are the most dangerous, like wikipedia and bullying.

The moment of my arrival on wikipedia is probably after it's demise really. I had been looking at the recent changes log a bit lately and have seen that there are pretty much no dark green contributors anymore, the overwhelming majority of edits are f-off edits. Telling everyone to F off basically. That's the sum total of the majority of edits here. reverts, don't do that templates, twinkling, and so on. Zero advice and helpful comments, at least I couldn't see any.

I like being ignorant, and telling people how ignorant I am, just yesterday I was saying how much of a clueless noob I am, trying to work out how to get a python script to create a sql database. I installed sql database software on my computer and had no clue whatsoever how to talk to it, and didn't mind telling anyone who'd listen :D

I find the best way to suck in massive amounts of information into your skull is to work up a good solid vacuum first :) Like with my drawings you guys can see, I knew nothing of drawing when I started, now, I'm not too bad. If I went to a party where there were animators, I could even tell jokes like pointing at their face and saying 'Look! a triangle' or 'you have excellent topography' which no non-animator would laugh at. :) I think it is cool to learn new skills, and I figure it will be cool to make a project much larger than wikipedia where people can't interact on the base level they do here. It's so easy to do too. I see sites like deviantart where there is none of the nasty stuff going on. I haven't signed up there and experienced it, maybe I will study it too, but I know what makes this place broken and how to fix it but there seems little point to it. I think it is easier to work out all these tables and iterations and cursors and queries and so on, names that are already becoming familiar and it's only been a few hours learning so far. I figure it's easier to describe a new website by drawing it the same way as I can draw up anything visual as a description of the item.

I think it will be better and really choice to be able to say 'I think wikipedia should be like this' and point to the website, rather than just dream. Of course, I will not even need to point to the website, as I make no difference at all to the equation. The site itself will be designed to attract, and will do so, even if I turn around and bad-mouth it all the way :D so typically my sense of humour too.

I'm glad you like the award, I'm going to put it in again at the top of the section cause it makes me laugh just to look at it. I think it's hilarious really. Half the awards I make, I'd make them just to amuse myself even if nobody else liked them. Penyulap ☏ 00:07, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Kumi, I agree with you, although in my new website (as soon as I can draw it) there won't be any articles for deletion, I'll delete it :D

The system will be a quality scale, the likes of which this place has never seen. The ISS article won't go to FA again for many years if ever, because they'd be able to delete a lot I have written, but find that there is a lot that I have written they'd have to choke on to get it through FA. FA itself is horrendous, because it is used as a mace to beat the newbies with, once it is FA, all discussion based on content stops and all queries are met with 'we can't change that(/update that/fix that) because it's FA'. It's the mantra of the morons. Although to write a FA is the simplest easiest thing in the whole wide world.

I shall replace it with a workable system.... on my website, and I'll design it in a way that people here would never agree to implement too :) I have a knack for weaving dynamics. Penyulap ☏ 00:28, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

If wikipedia is a dead loss, what else is there for a genius to do ?

Maybe Thomas Moore can edit

I think new horizons need to be looked at for finding new editors, surely we can dig something up to resurrect the falling number of editors. Penyulap ☏ 09:01, 24 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Your bot in the German Wikipedia

Please stop your bot de:User:PALZ9000 in the German Wikipedia. It does not own a bot flag there. Thanks. --TMg 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

already done, and commented in the forum. It's not in use there. Penyulap ☏ 19:57, 11 Feb 2013 (UTC)

Ombudsman Commission notice

Penyulap, how are you? I thought you might be interested in the notice at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Community consultation: Remit of the Ombudsman Commission. Best regards. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lolz, so they are too busy spending wikipedia donations on airline tickets to attend conferences on why their own commission doesn't work to actually do the work. That explains a lot. Like I should care, en.wiki is a joke. Penyulap ☏ 07:58, 26 Feb 2013 (UTC) 07:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

For MontanaBW, for all the horsing around.

or editing really, don't think I haven't noticed your brilliant editing. It's been so in my face for a year or so, but it took me a while to get around to making a suitable award. Hope you like it. Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 18 Mar 2013 (UTC) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

EXCELLENT! And wonderful pun! Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Two smiles at least, who is it that speaks like that ? 'oh betty the cat's done a whoopsie in my beret ?' they'd say Penny that way. The country-club way. I had both in my mind at the time. :)

I should brush it up too, cause their is a tiny error I didn't catch. (maybe you can suggest your favourite colours or some other small changes if you like) Penyulap ☏ 04:09, 19 Mar 2013 (UTC) 04:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Most merry-go-round horses are of different colors, I think a bay, a gray, a chestnut (you already have that) and a palomino might be nice! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 14:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

argh! you tie me in a knot. I can do the little video that goes with it in a rainbow of colours with ease, and that is a trifle. The smaller version gif can have any colour horses so long as the horses are all the same, so all tails or all heads or all diamonds is ok, but each one different means that it would exceed the capabilities of the server to hold and display. It is trickery now, because it is an illusion where each horse stops and returns to the start as soon as the next horse is up to almost the starting point. This gives the seamless impression that each horse travels round the carousel forever, although they only travel through almost 72 degrees of the carousel before snapping back to their starting place, so quickly that you don't even notice. Penyulap ☏ 02:59, 20 Mar 2013 (UTC) 02:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps simply make each horse white, and have rotating coloured spot-lights in the carousel? Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

All white is easy, I'll have to think of the math to make the spots work as suggested. I look at a bay horse but it doesn't seem so much a colour than as if a horse walked through paint up to it's knees, is it like that ? Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 20 Mar 2013 (UTC) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, a bay is a reddish horse with point coloration, most noticeably a black mane and tail. White markings are irrelevant, any color horse can have white markings. Legs, if no white markings are present, are black. (See lead image of article) But all white with pretty colored lights would be cool also! Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is awesome. I had no idea you had such talent. I only found this because I was looking at the Tabasco sauce SVG on Commons and saw that that was your work as well. Hope you're doing OK these days. —Soap— 23:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The new carousel has passed animal testing.

Why thank you ! I'm glad it pleases you. :)

There should be a Tabasco Fiasco really, the image is PD so who cares, but I fixed up the image upon the request from Canoe1967 who had an urgent request from the company. Someone who is into deleting doubles killed the first image already, so I'll never know who did it. Someone who can see the original can fix it I guess, if it matters at all, but it should be a tasty mess I've gotten myself into. Ah yes, I recall the malaise with the bolognese, the truffle kerfuffle, the coup with the roo and much ado about the stew with a waiver on the flavou... oh I'll stop there I think. Penyulap ☏ 06:14, 22 Mar 2013 (UTC) 06:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hi Penyulap, why are you blocked here? Lotje (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

hehe...that is something many people have been unable to find since 238 days! TheStrikeΣagle 16:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well each of the few people doing it have different reasons, but from the on en.wiki comments alone, it's easy to see that I'm good at spotting sockpuppets, so naturally people who think the world revolves around them would think I have some interest in their misdeeds, whereas it's closer to the truth to say I don't think of such people at all.

It's pure speculation as to why that would be a problem, but I note that the average run of the mill request for adminship has a few dozen voters, but the secret ballot for arbs attracts about 600 votes or so(or is it more?). It is widely advertised though, as to why it's secret is anyone's guess, or you know, not. Of course these things are not connected and out of 600 voters we can be sure there are zero socks (or not) still, that would explain a sh*tload of the block antics.

Or it could just be a whimsical contempt for consensus, or people want to gain favour with the 'me too' groupthink, who knows, who cares. My work spreads virally, like file:pengreen.gif to the last thing I uploaded today, something to help people learn about the natural world and watch pornography at the same time which is what wikipedia is all about, so it's not as if I can up and disappear like a fart in the wind. Though when I see what it has done to other people who have seen what was done to me, and the damage THAT causes those people, I am saddened. Looking at this this and Pesky's last edit especially, and many more, it all makes my heart break because these are such good people.

Then, there are a lot of 'owners' of the block, everyone wants a veto, claiming it's an arbcom block, a checkuser block, an ausc or however you spell it block, it all boils down to exactly the same thing. contempt for consensus and contempt for what used to be policy. Plenty of people have done what is perfectly allowable according to a big discussion on one of the blocking policy pages, and that is to make a 3rd party request for unblocking, those discussions are quickly quenched by the 'mob' that hang out on the drama boards.

So, there is nothing left to do except for en.wiki to look pretty stupid really. Not just with my block, but with that whole picture of the day thing. There is nobody left caring for the ISS page that knows the difference between a space station module and a space ship, and an incorrectly captioned image that was left on the ISS talkpage for a long time went onto the main page of wikipedia. 20,000 people clicked through to the article after reading the caption.

It's pretty much what any model of mob rule would show towards the end, a system that can be so easily manipulated is attractive to certain kinds of people, and those people don't create an attractive environment to work in, so the project has been in decline since 2006-7 and now, well, it's like those boxes full of 7 year old encyclopaedias you used to see at garage sales for next to nothing, sure the spaces and punctuation are robotically freshened daily and some churn goes on where people run the gauntlet and manage to make an improvement despite all opposition, but the ISS article for example has 3 or 4 dozen things wrong with it already, it is so totally out of date, lots of articles are. Whatever, I'm more interested in starting a new set of websites than putting so much effort into fighting the people trying to stop me improving this one. Penyulap ☏ 17:27, 26 Mar 2013 (UTC) 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the old, old story: Boy meets Hypocrisy; Boy falls in love with Hypocrisy. Boy exposes Hypocrisy for being Hypocritical; Hypocrisy bans Boy. Hypocrisy challenges Boy as to what he is going to do to improve the project; Boy baulks at obviously loaded challenge. Boy's friends depart hypocrisy more in sadness than anger; Hypocrisy gets a bit precious and circles the wagons. Thom2002 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

and people find my ranting hard to understand :D no, but seriously you're talking to like 5% of the audience here I think. Still, that's probably double what my tldr yapping gets. I am SO jealous of Bish's getting that Emu pic on her page. hmph. Penyulap ☏ 22:17, 26 Mar 2013 (UTC) 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)