User talk:DangerousPanda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.




UTRS Account Request[edit]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. the panda ₯’

Disregard of consensus and WP:UNINVOLVED[edit]

Since you were the closing administrator, I thought I would inform you that Bbb23 has topic banned Memills unilaterally in spite of you closing the earlier topic ban closure as unsuccessful. He has done this even though he !voted in that original discussion is therefore involved. Original discussion link; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive263#Proposed_indefinite_topic_ban_for_User:Memills_from_issues_related_to_men.27s_rights.2C_broadly_construed

I will be taking to the noticeboards should he not respond/continue with his unilateral tban action. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Panda, Tutelary has "invited" me twice now to revoke my ban or, as here, threatened to take it on high. The main reason I haven't responded is because I have such a busy social calendar, I'm just not sure if I'm free. I also insist on knowing what's going to be served before I accept invitations, and although she hasn't been specific, it doesn't sound appetizing. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The indefinite topic ban is based on a recent set of edits that were not discussed in the ANI discussion mentioned by Tutelary. Today's topic ban is completely unrelated to that discussion. If I'm understanding Tutelary correctly then he is saying that Memills' can never be topic banned (no matter what he does) because a previous discussion about topic banning the user was closed by DangerousPanda as no consensus. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No, he can be, but it must be done at WP:AN like last time, and one administrator can't topic ban or override community consensus not to ensure a topic ban against a user. If the community has a discussion about whether a certain user should be blocked, and it turns out to be 'no block' and then an admin blocks that user anyways for the conduct discussed at the original discussion, that's overriding community consensus. This is even more nasty because Bbb23 voted in the topic ban discussion, and cannot for all circumstances be considered uninvolved. Tutelary (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong on all points. First, the topic ban at AN was proposed by Kevin Gorman. He proposed it because he felt he was involved and couldn't unilaterally ban Memills. However, the probation sanctions permit any uninvolved administrator to ban any editor without going to AN. Second, I am not involved simply because I voted on the last one. If that were so, I would be involved for having previously sanctioned Memills pursuant to the probation sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
"admin blocks that user anyways for the conduct discussed at the original discussion" – Memills' conduct that got him topic banned today was not discussed "at the original discussion". Moreover, the closing admin specifically advised Memills to take a break from men's rights related pages and not continue his disruptive editing. But Memills' did continue to edit men's rights related pages (almost exclusively). And he did so disruptively. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be a topic ban mostly unrelated to the first AN discussion, and one well within the realm of administrator discretion. Having !voted on a previous discussion does not make one involved. I'm not sure what the issue is here ... hopefully the comments above have clarified things? the panda ₯’ 21:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what I'll do for now, but if I do you'll all get a notification. Tutelary (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

New question[edit]

Dear Panda, I have a question for you. I make a wikipedia page and I don't know why it dosen't appear on any search engine, even wikipedia search don't find'it.The page exist. Can you help me with some intel please? Leedskalnin (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I know I can search your contributions, but would you like to give me an idea as to what page you're talking about? the panda ₯’ 18:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Andrea...etc article, I have moved it to Draft:Andrea de Andrade Wikipedia, samba dancer as it's most certainly not ready to be online as a live article. Please follow the WP:AFC process the panda ₯’ 18:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Dear Sir, I want to thank you very much for time you have accorded to review my page and for fact that you have not delete it irreversible because I have made some work on it. I want to rewrite this article "Draft:Andrea de Andrade Wikipedia, samba dancer". Please, if is possible give me some clues about mistakes I made it and how I can replace it. Is my first article and I want to learn how to do it. From experts and not from tutorials. Is much effective to learn from other experience. Thank you very much for your amiability.Leedskalnin (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the content - nor the actual notability. That's why I suggested the use of WP:AFC the panda ₯’ 19:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Dear Panda,I modified the format of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_de_Andrade_Wikipedia,_samba_dancer#2013:_Uniados_da_Vila_Isabel) adding a summary and removing all external links. This is an domain were I not understand very well what kind of references I can use: - you tube?( I want the reader to see the parade where Andrea participate) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/8368348/Rio-de-Janeiro-carnival-2011-the-second-nights-parades-in-pictures.html?image=25 ? (is an article about her participation on 2011 carnival at Rio) - http://ego.globo.com/famosos/tudo-sobre/andrea-de-andrade.html. (is a Brazilian magazine where appears some article about Andrea)

I understand that links like that show pictures directly http://di.imguol.com/carnaval/2012/02/18/andrea-de-andrade-da-imperio-de-casa-verde-1329567592264_956x500.jpg are not admitted. Please, give me some clues about external links. In this article I need some external links is obviously. Thanks very much Leedskalnin (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dangerous Panda, I rearranged the article and put the external references on bottom of page. Please tell me what of this references can be used and what not. This are sites of magazines which deliver public information about this person . Help me to finish this article please. Thank you very much. Leedskalnin (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at it. Wow. Um. Where do I start. First, your first two sections don't belong - Samba has its own article, as does Carnival - it's an article about a person. I'm then failing to see how they meet the notability requirements - the text and the ref's don't show it the panda ₯’ 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I apologize for mistakes, obviously it was wrong to put "samba" and "Carnival" like headings, thanks for correction. About notability I read the link about it and I found this:

"In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual"

Now, assuming that Andrea de Andrade is a "low-profil individual" person, considering the rate of increasing her number of instagram followers on day (aprox. 1000) is obviously that this assuming ranking is changing explosive.But Andrea is not a "low-profil individual",in my opinion si a "medium to high profil individual" wich will evolve to highest. If this is the matter of your observation about notability I can't do anything, is obviously that we have other perceptions about what means an ranking of public profile of a person and I respect your opinion.

If is not this the matter of discussion (the public ranking of Andrea), and maybe I need to describe much in detail the external references, or to find other references (is plenty of them on web) please to give me a clue. Again thanks for your availability and amiability. Leedskalnin (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

1,000 Instagram followers? geez, I have more than that and I'm very low profile. Remember, this is notability and not popularity - this isn't MY opinion, it's the Wikipedia notability standards set by the project/community. You were at one point trying to use an image as a reference - no, just because she's in the image and was listed in the image caption, does not make the image about her, or can it be used as a ref. You're using non-reliable sources in a couple of spots. If you have to describe a reference, it's probably not a good one. Your draft is also full of what we call "peacock words - adjectives or adverbs that are flowery and non-encyclopedic. We don't care how wonderful, lovely, passionate or pretty something was (whether a costume, a dance, a person) we need objective (not subjective) facts. the panda ₯’ 10:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I did not say 1000 instagram followers, but the increasing number of followers on day (that means if yesterday was 42000, today is 43000), that I mean to say. Even this rate is increasing, today 1000, tomorrow 1020 etc. She have you tube videoclips with hundreds of thousand of viewers. I understand the point with adverbs and adjectives, I am agree with you, indeed I must don't use the fulminant (and pointless of course) description of person or they actions.You are perfect right I don't think about that. You make light in my head with your obs. about references: If for example Andrea win the contest for "queen of battery(or muse)"I must references the magazine link where appear the news "Andrea Andrade has win the contest for queen (muse) battery for ...etc." not the a picture what show the dancer. I understand correct?

Please you can show the spots where you find the non reliable source (I want to clarify in my mind this thing)and where you find reliable (if this exist)in my article?

I think I must to replace this "peacock word" (good expression) with the description effective of parade: how much dancer passé on "avenida" the time duration of parade, the number the allegorical chariots (floats),describe the battery lead by Andrea (numbers, organization),short depict of Andrea costumes, etc. without adverbs and adjectives, just facts. I can make reference to journals which depict in words the parade (for reliable source).I'm on the good road of understanding? Thank you very much for your patient with me. Leedskalnin (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Panda, I found this link https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRES_Mocidade_Independente_de_Padre_Miguel. In him is quoted some references at Andrea.Is possible to use this references in my article? http://www.sidneyrezende.com/noticia/110000+andrea+de+andrade+e+coroada+rainha+da+bateria+da+mocidade http://ego.globo.com/Gente/Noticias/0,,MUL1631349-9798,00-ANDREA+ANDRADE+E+COROADA+RAINHA+DE+BATERIA+DA+MOCIDADE+NO+RIO.html

Also, is permitted to make references at this Wikipedia page in my article? Leedskalnin (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That guy's website does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. And no, since Wikipedia is user-editable, it is not possible to use other Wikipedia articles/languages as a reference the panda ₯’ 13:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you have no idea how much valuable was this intel you give it to me. I sincerely appreciate your objectivity (a quality very rare in our days).Now I thing I have a clue about the spirit of a true Wikipedian. I must begin the true work to search real information (not peacock words -genial expression form ) for this article. Please let me know if, in course of this work can I ask you some questions about dilemmas which sure will appears. I hope in few days I can present you (if I may)a different article. Thank you very much for you availability and amiability!Leedskalnin (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dangerous Panda, is it permited to make a references to a official website on facebook? https://www.facebook.com/unidosdevilaisabel/photos/a.346940525365703.85194.196230143770076/346940718699017/?type=1&permPage=1 Thank you! Leedskalnin (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You have read WP:RS, right? I've linked to it many times. Of course it's not acceptable the panda ₯’ 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Rights removal request[edit]

Hello Panda! Its been a while since we last talked, how are things going? I came by to ask if it were okay if you remove both my reviewer and rollback rights as I now aim towards content creation as opposed to anti-vandalism work. The main reason is because its quite repetitive (Gives me the feeling I should be a better help to the community than I am now) and I aim to work mainly towards articles which will help the project expand so in removing my rights it keeps me away from the anti-vandal fighting and makes me focus on the content creation! Thanks. Acetotyce (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Acetotyce: I'm surprised you wanted reviewer removed, but I have removed them both. Cheers - hope all's well! the panda ₯’ 22:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Ah yes, reviewer rights played more of an anti-vandalism role for me as opposed to editing articles that are pending-changes protected. When the time is right I may request again in the future if I ever do plan to edit articles that are P-C protected frequently. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Let me know, from what I can see, I'd be able to hand it back no issue the panda ₯’ 23:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)