User talk:DangerousPanda

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

Can you update a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu277 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ducktails (band) revised

Hi there I've revised the Ducktails (band) page adding more references from mainstream media (BBC, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Spin etc).

Can you let me know if this is okay now, and if not, what needs to be done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails_(band)

thanks in advance

Marcushamblett (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First, please keep discussions together - this belonged up with the rest. Second, I still don't see it - there's nothing there at all that even hints at notability, and the ref's you use do not grant that as per WP:NBAND (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking over my article, and sorry for splitting the conversation. WP:NBAND specifies that the band has to meet one of the criteria listed and I believe I've demonstrated that they meet criteria 1, 5, 6 and 11. Regardless of your opinion on the band's notability, I'm sure I've proved it objectively with the refs. Since many of the refs are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" would you not at least agree that they meet criterion 1? And since another ref is to the Domino Records site, do they not meet criterion 5? And another to BBC Radio shows they meet criterion 11? If you still insist that you simply "don't see it", could this be put to a vote instead? Marcushamblett (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ref 1: A review. Yeah, it's in the Guardian, but reviews are trivial

Ref 2: Oooh, an announcement about the release of a video, obviously taken mostly from a press-release. Yawn.

Ref 3: Brooklyn Vegan blog? Reliable source?

Ref 4: See number 2.

... need I continue? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, since you've only addressed the refs for criterion 1, when there are also refs showing indisputably that the band have released several albums on major or important independent labels and have had their music on rotation on major national radio networks, meeting criteria 5 and 11. I've also just inserted another reference pointing to "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" in the form of a live stream on Pitchfork TV, meeting criterion 4. Again the article only needs to meet one criterion and I believe it meets at least 3. Again I'd ideally like the question of deletion put to a vote rather than judged by you, is that possible? Thanks again for your time. Marcushamblett (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have said before, I'm not the be all and end all of any subject. There is a project related to music, bands, etc - I have suggested that you speak to someone who is a part of that project before - have you done that yet? They may be able to assist more. After all, I'm merely looking at this from a generic policy point of view. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm an inexperienced editor and would really appreciate you pointing me in the specific direction of where to go and who to talk to. Thanks again. Marcushamblett (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to post again I think my last comment was slightly confusingly worded, but I'd really appreciate you pointing me in the right direction of who to talk to or where to go with this. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcushamblett (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You visit WP:MUSIC ... it should have a discussion page were you can ask for some assistance. It's one of the reasons I originally suggested WP:AFC for you as well. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Irvine Bay Golf Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do it for me

You 've access to Twinkle, I nolonger do because my old computer broke and therefore my IP changed. I edited as an IP before.--Penssail (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see no policy-driven reason to AFD it, so I won't. Besides, all registered editors have access to Twinkle - it's part of the standard interface now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I followed you from my ANI complaint and thank you for your input. In regards to Twinkle, I see no way for an IP to get access to this tool. The WP:Twinkle page gives links to pages stating the opposite.[[1]]. It would be a nice tool to keep an eye on drive by edits that seem out-of-line instead of checking them each session, manually. Too many irons in my little fire. For a start I cannot find evidence of a "preferences page". Thanks for any help on this! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

See the important word "registered" that I had originally implied but not stated, and I have now added above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I wondered as IPs have no access to many services, even for editor clash complaints. Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You should have full access to anything about clash complaints - they're all manual for a reason. Other tools are rightly reserved for registered editors. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Help me responder from Category

I'm confused. I only created the userbox because I couldn't find one, and I would think that on the category page everyone visits would be the best place to list available userboxes and let people decide if they want it or not. I even went through great pains to make to formatting and display of the box no be offensive and flow with the page. If that is not the place for those to be displayed, where should it be displayed Technical 13 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's already at least 3 that I have seen. Plus, they would never go on the category page .... maybe the category talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I've copied the userbox from the talk page to the top of the talk page and added mine (which isn't rendering properly for me atm but that is likely due to my poor Internet connect (was displaying fine at school an hour ago and nothing has been changed on it)). You said you've seen at least 3, could you point me to the other(s)? Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Envita

I'm posting this here because I'm not sure you saw it on the Requests for Undeletion Page. I am not trying to annoy or SPAM you. The guidelines say "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Envita fits these guidelines. They've been featured on ABC 15[2] and numerous other secondary sources. I don't understand why I wasn't even given a chance to defend my article before it was deleted. That's all I'm asking for. A chance to improve this article, make it more objective, etc. Like I said, CTCA was given that chance and still haven't improved since the warning was issued in February 2012! Tell me what I'm missing, because I'm trying to be compliant. Blatantly Evil (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It was promotional, and you know it - and at least one of the ref's was not considered "significant coverage". If you want to start from scratch, write a new WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, but I won't restore a promotional piece of text like that to anywhere. Yes, I saw your second request - which makes no sense, and has no place there. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, I tried my best to make it objective. I included an FDA warning letter (which is not something a company would advertise and, I think, constitutes at least some notability.) If there is need for improvement, fine, I'm willing to work on that. I want the article as non-partial as possible and I still assert deletion was unnecessary. Why doesn't my second request make sense? What part specifically confuses you? Even user Toddst1 agrees it wasn't an advertisement, so I'm having trouble understanding what your issue was. Blatantly Evil (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

...and my colleague agreed that the "article" would not be undeleted. I think I've been more than patient with you, and I have provided you with a way forward: recreate as a draft, but please ensure that you consult with an experienced editor before moving it. Harassment and forum-shopping does not become you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. More info at User talk:Blatantly Evil. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Glass

Would you mind keeping an eye on Google Glass? I think it needs semi-protection. I'm involved as an editor. Thx. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I should have noted that a) I watchlisted it and b) spoke with the IP :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Nick.mon

I'm inclined to extend the block based on this IP. The IP geolocates to the same region of Italy as the last IP Nick used. Nick.mon has also edited the same portal edited by the IP. I've removed the IP-added section from the Bersani article, in part because of my suspicion, but also because it's poorly worded and not fully compliant with the one source. (When it was originally added by the IP, there was no source.) There are earmarks of Nick's editing style, but there are also differences. Like Nick, the IP's English is poor, but it appears to be worse than Nick's. For example, take a look at this edit by Nick about a month ago. Do you have any thoughts on whether we should take any action?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not semi-protect temporarily? Force someone's hand. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, there's insufficient disruption to the article to semi-protect it, meaning we would be punishing legitimate IPs from editing the article. Also, how would that force anyone's hand unless we suspected that Nick is using named accounts. Do you think that's the case?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nick also tends to use wikilinks and some degree of cites, which the IP does not. It's understandable that people from the same region would edit a highly-charged article about a controversial politician (how many people from Boston have recently edited a certain article...). If you don't feel comfortable with semi, then I suppose wait and watch? If you find something clearly WP:EVADE-based, then we extend Nick ad infinitum (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why...

I am very sorry for inadvertently removing your comments.--File Éireann 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's ok ... I'm sure you're restored it by now :-) Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Green Phantom

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson - a pathetic timewaster. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Any help with nuking his articles appreciated, I've done most of the other socks. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignore that, I found the fast way to do it! Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

user name change request VHlab

Hello, I had requested the name change because I was trying to access material that was in the Sandbox of user VHlab. Can you please just give me access to the material that is in the sandbox? I have been trying to get access to it for some time. I thought that I needed to create the user before requesting a name change. Thank you CarpeCor (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The sandbox was rightly deleted as pure advertising and cannot be viewed anymore. Don't forget: even though you have changed usernames, you're not absolved from WP:COI and WP:PROMO - you should never be creating or editing an article about a company/org you're related too or else it can lead to repeat blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

🙈🙉🙊

Hi. I see you've deleted 🙈🙉🙊 as R3. Note that it was created by an admin after an AN discussion. That discussion IMO tended toward no consensus (Chamal N (talk · contribs) and myself said to create the page while Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and you said not to, and no one else expressed a view); thus, unilateral deletion is improper. (See CHEAP for example.) I'd appreciate your recreating the page. Thanks! — The Great Redirector 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe you misread the AN discussion - consensus was that it was not according to policy, and that deletion was proper. Remember, it's not a vote. Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I misread the AN discussion. I can't see deleted revisions, but I'd appreciate if you let me know the name of the page-creating admin so that I can inform him or her of this discussion and he or she can weigh in on it. Or if you let him or her know yourself. Thanks. — The Great Redirector 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was User:Killiondude. Why rehash the discussion when it was quite clear last time ... that can become disruptive eventually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. As I said above, I don't think it was clear. — The Great Redirector 17:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood from the beginning. English can be a challenge at times :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just commenting because I got a talkback template pointing here (for reasons unknown to me). I'm not really offended and don't care that it was deleted. It's obviously not an important redirect. If you'd like to contest it I think there's WP:RFD or some place you can actually get votes or whatever. I don't read the AN discussion as a vote. Killiondude (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. — The Great Redirector 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this seemed like a fine redirect to me. If it hadn't required an administrator to create the page, this redirect would have been quietly created without incident or acknowledgement. We have a lot of silly Unicode redirects already (e.g., this gem: 🎉). I'm not sure what makes the three monkeys glyph exceptional enough to warrant speedy deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your 1RR of an editor has been mentioned at WP:AE

Hello Bwilkins. See the bottom of WP:AE#Bobrayner where User talk:Evlekis/Archive12#March 2013 has been mentioned. It appears you imposed a six-month 1RR restriction on Evlekis as an unblock condition. It doesn't sound like you considered this to be an ARBMAC restriction, but possibly an admin could make a note in WP:ARBMAC anyway just for information purposes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not originally note it as an ARBMAC restriction, and I usually am pretty anal about logging those things at WP:RESTRICT ... odd. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, Bwilkins. I know you as fair and experienced admin and therefore I would like to ask your advice concerning this comment. Although it does not mention any names, it is in the thread about edit conflict between me and a group of editors and my name is mentioned in several postings above in the same thread, so this comment makes direct allegations that I am a corporate PR writer working undercover on the BP article. That kind of allegation about paid editors editing on that article are made before at different talk pages. So far I have tried to ignored this as also the ongoing name-calling and personal remarks (not entirely, I have posted several times request to avoid name-calling and comments about persons); however, undercover paid editing is a serious accusation. Therefore, I would like to ask your advice what to do to clean my name? I think that if there are doubts that any non-disclosed paid editor may be involved, these doubts should be investigated thoroughly but I don't knew what is the right venue to ask that kind of investigation?

As a related issue, the overall atmosphere around this article is non-constructive, so maybe it deserves more close surveillance by admins? Thank you in advance for your advice. Beagel (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go anywhere BP with a 10' pole :-) The comment is inappropriate, and the editor knows better. I have made an appeal to their personal ethics - but that does not "clear anyone's name". If any person's editing appears to have WP:COI, and non-WP:NPOV, then people will always believe something, whether or not they put it in writing. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You are right - people always believe something and therefore one should have just a thicker skin. Your remark about "wouldn't going anywhere BP with a 10' pole" is wise. A number of editors like WMC and others has learned this during editing that page and probably it would be the way to follow. Once more, thank you for your advice. Beagel (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Note

I appreciate your reply. however, not sure that I follow your point here. how does the phrase "all possible wordings" relate to this item? that is not a part of my idea. I think that the idea is fairly workable. also, please note that this is a response to the process for an RFC which Arbcomm itself set up. feel free to read the next section there, which further explains it. You can read it at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass.

thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my first article

Hello Bwilkins and thank you for the welcome to wiki. I uploaded a biography of a living person yesterday but it has been deleted. The title was "Douglas Cody Fielding." Can you enlighten me as to why the page was removed? I have read a great deal of wiki help articles but would appreciate it if you could possibly point out specifics about why my first BLP was deleted. Thanks in advance! Franfinsf (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that your first article was trying to suggest that a personal trainer is somehow notable enough (especially as per WP:ATHLETE) to warrant being included in an encyclopedia. Besides not seeing anything that meets the notability requirements, the "sources" were not reliable for use in a biography of a living person. In addition, the writing was very promotional ... like it was trying to drum up business for the guy. Most new editors should spend a few weeks (minimum) or in some cases months editing existing articles in order to understand notability and sourcing requirements before trying to tackle a brand new BLP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and I will spend time now reading more guidelines before attempting to rewrite my article. I appreciate your constructive advice! Many thanksFranfinsf (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A message

WorldTraveller101 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks. ^{Chat Center}WorldTraveller101^{Wikipedia Business} 02:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

i did not get a responce and this was not about unprotection

why did you revert my edit, it was not really about unprotection it was about the sitionation that i described 95.195.194.139 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Because you already had been advised that the situation WAS NOT within the remit of WP:ANI. When a thread stops receiving replies, it's because it will not obtain further action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

who advised me? i got a responce supporting my cause, seriosly someone needs to fix this, evryone seems to agree that the baltics were successor states in the infobox but two users edit warred without disussion 95.195.194.139 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talkpage. Period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Your block summary reminded me of why I am still here. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Corfu Beer on the rocks.jpg This is for you. Cheers. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Somehow the layout was screwed up so I had to suppress the picture. But cheers regardless. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmm....tasty! Thanks! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Anytime. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions

I was told to ask you first before going to WP:AN/I, I would like to loosen my restrictions apposed on my account. I created a topic at WP:AN/I but a user told me to first come to you so that's what I'm doing :D. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake; the ANI post didn't include the specific wording of the restrictions (which I just found) so I was unaware they explicitly referenced ANI was the place to go to request removal. NE Ent 02:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

This contains a legal threat: [2]. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it doesn't. Seems like a rather nasty, hate-filled repartée between the 2 of them, however (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:NestleNW911

Howdy! I saw you were the blocking admin for Nestle. I strongly suspect that Nestle is a sock of User:Shutterbug, the church of scientology's sockmaster. The checkusers in past cases have proven inconclusive, S/he has been checked three times with one time actually being blocked as a sock but they filed a unblock request which was accepted as AGF. The rest have been closed as inconclusive. I think this investigation should be reopened and nestle tagged as a sock of shutterbug, but I honastly don't know exactly how to move forward. Please advise. Cheers.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Head up

WikiThanks

Thanks for the heads up Bwilkins. It took me about 24 hours to decide whether to accept the nomination. When I read that this was Smtchahal's first nomination for RfA and that declining the nomination could have led to some form of embarrassment for the nominator, then I decided to accept the nomination. Many thanks for your kind words. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)