Talk:Tony Penikett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need more references[edit]

I note that this article does not have a single valid reference. Wikimedia received a communication suggesting that it contains inaccuracies. I have requested more details, and suggested posting them here. In the meantime, i hope other editors will work on adding some references to make sure the existing information is accurate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 June 2014[edit]

Replace watermarked image with File:Tony Penikett Head Shot.jpg Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: the current image is File:Tony Penikett 2.jpg which seems to redirect to File:Tony Penikett Head Shot.jpg; and I see no watermark in that. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is because I requested the duplicate file with the watermark be deleted from Commons, and it is now a redirect. Why would you not change it to eliminate the redirect? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe NOTBROKEN applies to files, because the pages using the redirect don't appear in the file usage section on the file page, and the commons what links here tool doesn't detect other wikis. CommonsDelinker goes around fixing the links to files moved on the commons. I would actually prefer the old image, File:Tony Penikett.jpg, the head shot doesn't seem appealing. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using the old photo in the info-box, since it appears to date from his time as Premier, and then use the "head shot" in the "Later Career" section. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it actually does date from his time as Premier; rather, the "January 1, 1980" creation date is almost certainly a null "no creation date present in the metadata" placeholder. The evidence is that (a) the copyright holder is named as "SFU Public Affairs and Media Relations", but he wasn't associated with SFU until the early 2000s; (b) he's standing in front of a map of British Columbia, which he wouldn't be doing if the picture actually dated from his time in office in Yukon, rather than later on when he was working in British Columbia; and (c) he looks not even close to being 25 years younger in that photograph than he does in the one that's dated 2005. In fact, he looks to be almost exactly the same age in both photographs — he would have been 35 years old in 1980, and the man in the SFU photograph is clearly much closer to 60 than to 35. So the evidence at hand is that both photographs date roughly to the same time period — and even if you discount all of that evidence and assume 1980 as the real date of the photograph, it still wouldn't actually date from his term as premier, considering that he didn't become premier until 1985. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that the image should be reverted because Jmlee28's other edits have been reverted as vandalism. 117Avenue (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there's an argument I can actually respond to.
Our conflict of interest rules are not a blanket prohibition on the subject or their representative ever making any edits to the article at all — they're only a prohibition on edits that violate one or more of Wikipedia's content policies, such as WP:NPOV or the use of reliable sourcing. Since the photographs in question don't present any bias issues one way or the other, however, the COI issue is irrelevant. In actual fact, if an article subject dislikes the existing photograph, then as long as the replacement is uploaded to us under an appropriate content license, we typically do defer to their photo preference as a gesture of good faith. (To name just three examples that I was involved in, we've previously done exactly that for Mellisa Hollingsworth, Bryan Lee O'Malley and Timber Timbre.) So Jmlee's conflict of interest with regard to the text of the article has no bearing on the question of which photograph we should or shouldn't use, because no evidence has been presented so far that either of the photographs actually violates any of our content policies.
If you could prove that Jmlee didn't actually have the correct copyright permissions to upload the photograph under the license that he did, then we would certainly have to deprecate and delete it as an improperly licensed copyright violation — but so far, the only valid rationale we've got for going back to the old photograph is that you personally like it better. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reasons to prefer the old photograph ( File:Tony_Penikett.jpg ) over the new one ( File:Tony_Penikett_Head_Shot.jpg ) are that the old one is sharper than the new one, and much higher resolution (3,456 × 2,592 vs. 484 × 553). If we want something closer to a head shot, we probably have plenty of resolution to simply crop the old image to focus more closely on the face. Also, if Jmlee is still interested or willing, uploading a similarly high-resolution (and in-focus) photo would certainly be welcome. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premier of Yukon, not "the Yukon"[edit]

The government no longer refers to itself as "the Yukon" but just "Yukon". The entry in the Infobox should be edited to "3rd Premier of Yukon": Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the government no longer refers to itself as "the Yukon". However, this change was only in 2003, Penikett was premier in 1985. 117Avenue (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Lock" missing[edit]

Although a protected page, this article does not have the lock icon in the upper right hand corner. The appropriate lock should be added.Naraht (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015[edit]

can you unblock the article on Thursday please? 41.69.19.49 (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The semi-protection is permanent. If you want this reconsidered, please apply at WP:requests for page protection.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The protection, to be clear, was put in place because a paid PR consultant was persistently trying to overwrite the entire article with a version which focused almost exclusively on Penikett's current work, while almost completely obliterating any acknowledgement whatsoever of the fact that he had ever been in politics at all. Basically, they were trying to replace the encyclopedia article (which, by definition, has to focus primarily on the reasons why he'd even qualify for an encyclopedia article in the first place) with a LinkedIn résumé that was about his current consulting work instead of his time in politics.
And even with a protection in place, it's at the "autoconfirmed users" level, and not "administrators only" — the only people locked out right now are anonymous IPs and brand new users who just registered two days ago. Literally any properly established Wikipedia user can still edit the article without difficulty or barrier.
If there's a substantive edit that needs to take place on Thursday, then rest assured it will get dealt with as soon as we know what it is. But given the past problems here, we need to know the exact details of what needs to be changed. We can't just do a blanket unlock just because somebody asks for a blanket unlock, without providing any details of why an unlock is needed. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015[edit]

Could you unblock the article of Tony Penikett tomorrow please? 41.69.14.209 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As you were advised last time, you have to give a specific reason for your request. The article has been subject to a campaign of persistent vandalism in the past — and, for that matter, it's only under a "autoconfirmed users" protection, not a blanket protection. Which means pretty much the only people who can't edit the article are anonymous IPs. If there's a specific edit you want to request, then request it already — but "total unblock because an anonymous IP asked for a total unblock for no specific reason" is not a thing that's going to happen on an article that's been the victim of major vandalism problems. So you need to request a specific edit you want made to the article — which means the details and sourcing for a specific piece of information that needs to be added or corrected, and not just "unlock for no specific reason". If you're not prepared to offer a specific edit that's needed to the article, then kindly just go away. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015[edit]

can you please undo the indefinite protection tomorrow so I could add more details please? 41.69.14.209 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As has now been pointed out to you twice before, this is not how the edit request process works — the article will not be unlocked to IP edits no matter how many times you ask. If you provide the specific details of a specific edit you want made to the article, then an autoconfirmed editor can make that edit to the article for you if it's suitable and appropriate and properly sourced — but "total carte blanche unlock" without any detail about what you want to add or change, is simply not happening. Either provide the complete details of a specific edit that you want made to the article, or go away. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2015[edit]

Could you unlock the article had been protected so I could add some details, not for vandalism is for own right please? 105.199.109.193 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done For the last damn time, this is not how the "edit request" process works — "blanket unlock plz" is not an edit request. An edit request is the specific details of a specific change that needs to be made to the article, which a person who can get past the lock will then make for you if they're appropriate and correct and properly sourced. No matter how many times you repost to ask for a blanket unlock again and again and again, you will NEVER receive a positive answer, because this is NOT WHAT THE EDIT REQUEST PROCESS IS FOR. Either provide the SPECIFIC details of a SPECIFIC change that needs to be made to the article, so that somebody with autoconfirmed edit privileges can actually do something with the "request", or buzz off. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015[edit]

please i,am begging you unblock the article so we can get even right? 41.69.84.105 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Read the responses you got the last five times. Then read them again. Keep reading them again and again and again until you actually understand what's being said to you, because you are NEVER going to get a different answer until you actually provide the SPECIFIC details of a SPECIFIC change that needs to be made to the article, so that somebody with autoconfirmed edit privileges can actually PERFORM the desired edit. After everything that's gone on here in the past, you are not getting free rein to just do anything you want to the article without telling us what you want done first — so either provide the SPECIFIC details of a SPECIFIC change that needs to be made to the article, so that somebody with autoconfirmed edit privileges can actually PERFORM the desired edit, or GO AWAY.
If I ever see another "edit request" on this talk page in which you just ask for blanket unlock, without telling us the specific details of what you want added or changed, then I'm going to semiprotect this talk page too, so that you can never edit it again anymore either. Bearcat (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016[edit]

I begging you for your trust and dignity please I,ll show you who worthy to be a descent editor to my work if you unlock the article as I could? 41.69.92.19 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights, as has been explained to you numerous times above.
As Bearcat stated above:- If I ever see another "edit request" on this talk page in which you just ask for blanket unlock, without telling us the specific details of what you want added or changed, then I'm going to semiprotect this talk page too, so that you can never edit it again anymore either.
If he does not semi-protect this page, and you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016[edit]

I have a request for you unblock article it's for sake for my blocked user page 41.69.15.17 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As has already been pointed out to you the last eleventy trillion times, the edit request process entails posting the SPECIFIC details of a SPECIFIC change that needs to be made to the article, so that somebody can DO something with the request. "Unblock please" is NOT an edit request, and you are NEVER going to get an affirmative answer to that. As I warned you two times ago, this talk page has now been locked for two weeks so that you cannot edit it at all — once the block expires, you may post the SPECIFIC details of a SPECIFIC change that needs to be made to the article, so that I or another editor can MAKE the necessary edits. But the block will be renewed again, for longer than two weeks, if you keep posting "unblock please" requests without the details of a specific edit that needs to be made. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016[edit]

Tony Penikett[edit]

Unprotection: Expiration. Mo 41.69.78.147 (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Same reason as the last eleventy billion times: this is not an edit request. Provide the SPECIFIC details of a SPECIFIC edit that needs to be made to the article. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016[edit]

Tony Penikett[edit]

Unprotection: Expiration. Mo Mo

 Not done I'm not explaining this again. Just bloody stop it. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it once and I'll never disturb you once and for all deal?
No. If you cannot explain what you think should be changed, I see no reason to expect that any changes you intend to introduce would be helpful. These requests make unprotection ever less likely. Huon (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016[edit]

Dear User:Bearcat I am apologizing for causing trouble and accusation. I was User:Kww who blocked the article. Can you tell him to unprotected the article? 197.132.250.59 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Majora (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've been asked numerous times now to give the specific details of a specific change that needs to be made to the article. We do not unlock protected or semi-protected pages just because an anonymous IP asks for the page to be unlocked — especially when we know that the anonymous IP making that request is someone who has been blocked from editing Wikipedia in the past for making inappropriate edits. We need a real reason why unlocking the page is warranted — which has to be better than "because I want to personally edit it in ways I'm not willing to explain" — and the "edit request" process is not the appropriate venue to make that request anyway. Provide the specific details of a specific edit that needs to be made to the article, so that somebody can actually do something with the request, or stop this pointless disruption. Those are your choices here. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, just for the record, the only further answer you're getting to any edit request on this page, if you haven't provided the specific details of a specific edit that needs to be made to the article, is that your post is just going to be deleted or reverted, and not even responded to at all. Provide the specific details of a specific edit that needs to be made to the article, or just forget it. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected edit request on 2 March 2016[edit]

Can I have request to unprotect the article with a gratitude ? 41.69.96.236 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected edit request on 3 March 2016[edit]

{{edit Unprotected|Tony Penikett|answered=yes}} Can I have permission to unprotect the article? Mo

 Not done Read the answers you got the last 100 times. Keep reading them over and over again until you understand what's being said to you, because you are never going to get a different answer from anybody until you start complying with what you were told all those other times. And the fact that I've had to go in after you and clean up every single edit you've tried to make to Prince Edward Island's electoral districts in the past week, because you're actually breaking the tables every time you touch them, is not helping you look like a reliable or trustworthy editor either. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request on Tony Penikett[edit]

If behave for a week can you unprotect the article deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.56.101 (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No--this is too strange a request, and your history too disruptive. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine Listen to all of you I,am not disruptive at all I just to trying to help Wikipedia give it shape Just add some missing source so you've to delete my disruptive contribution history I'll start all over again this time Ill be a good editor some time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.20.147 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you can't just post the details that you want to see changed to this talk page, as an actual edit request, so that somebody who can get past the page protection can make the desired changes for you? The very fact that you refuse to do that, no matter how many times you've been politely asked (or bluntly screamed at) to do that, makes you look very much like your intentions are disruptive rather than constructive. That may not actually be the case, but until we know the details you want to change we can only judge the situation by what it looks like — and what it looks like is that you're refusing to provide the details because you know they'll be rejected if you're upfront about them. What it looks like, frankly, is that you are the same guy who originally tried to turn this entire article into a LinkedIn résumé for Penikett's current consulting work while completely disappearing his entire career in politics, and that what you really want is carte blanche to do the same thing all over again.
I'm going to go over this one more time: an edit request is the specific details of a specific change that needs to be made to the article — following which, if your information is accurate and properly sourced and improves the article, somebody else will make the edit on your behalf. What you've been doing, however, is not the way to get anything done on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was User:LittleWink who cause you protect the article in the first place not me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.20.147 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not the username that was involved. And I still don't know what your username used to be before you got editblocked, so I have no way to tell whether or not you're the user whose edits did force the protection. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016[edit]

Tony Penikett[edit]

Unprotection: Expiration date. Mo Mo

This is not an "edit request". Stop misusing the process. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Ill stay quiet for days When your conscience thoughts improved when you unprotect the article?

I'm not asking you to "stay quiet" — I'm asking you to make a proper edit request, i.e. the specific details of a specific change that needs to be made to the article, so that somebody can do something with it. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As this is Moatassemakmal (talk · contribs), I'm asking him to stay quiet. Any edits I catch from this long-term vandal will be reverted on sight. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016[edit]

This request is to add recent work experience to the "Later Career" Section. Please add the following: Since 2014, Penikett is a Visiting Professor at the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy in Vancouver. From 2015-2017, Penikett was a Mentor for Jane Glassco Northern Fellows, at The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation. From 2016-2017, Penikett was a Mentor for the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. In 2016, Penikett was a Ministerial Panel Member, appointed by Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr to engage communities and Indigenous groups on the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project, with Kim Baird and Dr. Annette Trimbee.


Twylamariesmith (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Source needed and currently sounds far too promotional EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posted 1 June 2017[edit]

In the "Later Career" section, please change the sentence "From 2001 to 2005, Penikett was a senior fellow on native treaty issues and a visiting professor for the Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue at Simon Fraser University." to "From 2001 to 2005, Penikett was a senior fellow on native treaty issues and a visiting professor for the Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue at Simon Fraser University, and then was appointed a Dialogue Associate of SFU Centre for Dialogue in 2017."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindswu (talk • contribs) 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need to find a source, but Tony Penikett was also a playwright before entering politics. At least one of his plays was performed onstage professionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.140.177 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrouille is feminine[edit]

Please change "La patrouille perdu" to "La Patrouille perdue" in the last section on personal life as patrouille is feminine. Any google search on "La Patrouille perdu" (other than the error/typo on the Writers' union of Canada page) will show the proper spelling. Also note the proper French capitalization of the title, where words after the first noun are not capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.52.134 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Penikett&oldid=1202689048"