User talk:DangerousPanda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Bwilkins)
Jump to: navigation, search

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations
Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Rob Maness, Redirect instead of Deletion?[edit]

The "Rob Maness" article was recently deleted completely due to a lack of notability prior to his campaign for the Louisiana Senate Seat. I was going to create a redirect to United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014 but wasn't sure of the proper way to go about this for an article that has already been deleted. Any guidance would be great.

In a different direction, I found about 20 additional articles related to his military history and all prior to his campaign (but from the same newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal. Would those articles in any way change the decision on deletion and is there a way to go about further discussing the deletion?

You seem very busy, so sorry for all the questions, and no need for a quick response (I tried to find these answers through searches but was unsuccessful). Thank you. Khronos21 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As per our guidelines, we typically don't even create redirects, yet. I still don't see his military history as making him notable enough prior to the campaign. ES&L 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I guess I was basing it off of WP:POLITICIAN, where it says "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion", which made me think a redirect would be appropriate. Khronos21 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you believe it's appropriate, go ahead and create a redirect to the election article. I wouldn't want the article history left behind, at this point - just in case someone got the idea to revert back to a previous version DP 19:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your guidance. Khronos21 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough[edit]

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't agree with the motion, but thanks for letting me know :-) DP 19:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Would you be willing to blockUser:Cronkurleigh from more of this and this on their own talk page, and also block this IP sock? I'm getting fed up with it all popping up in my watchlist.... — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, take his takpage off your watchlist :-) Don't comment or provoke him there further. The IP hasn't edited in 3 days, so nothing to block ... yet. Keep an eye on his pet articles, and let me know if there's a return DP 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Re-visit an article?[edit]

Hey, I've been talking with Kevin Rutherford about the Suey Park article. I've found where her 2013 hashtag received quite a bit of coverage back in 2013, so it's not entirely a one event sort of deal. The coverage was global for #NotYourAsianSidekick, so I've started working on a copy in my userspace. I'm content to incubate it in my userspace for the time being, but I think that the arguments at AfD mostly focused on the Colbert issue and sort of only gave lipservice to the coverage she received in 2013 because there weren't many RS in the article. The events were somewhat close together, but they are separate events all the same. I just thought I'd ask your opinion on this since you were the closing admin. Like I said, I'm fine with incubating for now and gathering coverage over time since I do think that there's a good chance she'll end up getting more coverage to have a more solid keep but I figured hey- why not ask? Worst you could do is say that you still think a redirect is the better choice, but the best is that we could run this through DR and get it un-redirected. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I know I typed a bunch of notes the other day, but they didn't save. Now I don't remember what I said ... however, the lead is horribly clunky: "who has been the origin of trending hashtags on Twitter in 2013 and 2014" ... millions of people have originated hashtags, so that's not all that notable. It almost makes it sound like she invented them overall. I'm still having trouble seeing her as overly notable - if it wasn't for the Colbert thing, she still be some helpful, yet obscure Tweeter DP 08:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll keep working on it, then. I'll try to re-write the lead sentence to make it less clunky and ambiguous. I'm wondering if I should change it to just "known for the creation of the twitter hashtags #NotYourAsianSidekick and #CancelColbert" or "known for her use of social media in her activism campaigns". I figure I'll wait for a little while before more avidly seeking DR so I can gain more sourcing. Her 2013 tweet campaign did get quite a bit of coverage, not as much as the Colbert thing, but enough to where I could be very selective about which ones I chose to add to the article. I figure that it's likely she'll gain more coverage over a third event, so I'll wait for now so I can be a little more certain how DR would fare. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I had never heard of those 2 hashtags until reading them in the article, it's a stretch to use use those as the yardstick :-) ...picture some random article creator tying to create an article saying "they're famous for creation the hashtag #GoatsAreAwesome" because they saw the article on Park and felt that was our new bar for notability! *yikes* I think there are some positive elements, but the overall is barely eluding us  the panda  ₯’ 09:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand. I'm just a little frustrated because both hashtag events did get quite a bit of coverage, and we have to weigh whether that coverage is less because it happened on social media (as opposed to an event in a physical location) or if it should be considered as equal to something that happened "IRL" (ie, physical location). I'm kind of mixed on it myself, but a lot of people tend to dismiss things that happen online because it's online. I don't think we'd have to worry about giving someone notability for one trending hashtag, as that can be dismissed under 1E. My biggest concern is that this person had two separate instances where they gained a sizable amount of coverage, which doesn't really qualify her as 1E in a lot of ways. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said, the acceptability of this is barely eluding us ... it's like being next-in-line to get into the really cool club: you can hear the music, you can even see through the glass door, but you're still on the outside looking in ... but hopefully not for much longer!  the panda  ₯’ 09:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A Dog for you!!!![edit]

Attack dog.png Happy Attack Dog`s Wiki attack dog award
For all your anti vandalism work, I give you this award as you have never been awarded enough for your work in this field. Now get out there and nudge some vandals in the right direction! (note: if you feel as if you do not want to be called a attack dog, think of the award with the caption of "Beware of dog, he wants cuttles.") Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


I don't get this at all; I see here that I must have meant to copy-select that to paste/comment on it; but you have effectively censored my post....not that I want to be there, or don't think that the whole witchhunt and pseudo-friendly Pollyanna game ("I'm trying to help you") has been a farce since it began.Skookum1 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not censor your post. Your edit REMOVED someone else's filing about EllenCT, so I was forced to revert it. You're welcome to re-edit your own post, but ensure that you do not accidentally remove someone else's at the same time  the panda  ₯’ 10:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)