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

Equestria Daily

A new deletion review has been created regarding an article you've recently discussed. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nordpay

Fine, I'm aware that I tend to be a bit trigger happy with deleting articles, so I try to respond to aggrieved editors positively. It's very occasionally been possible to work with an editor to salvage a spam article, but usually it's pretty futile Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure he gets it yet ... his current unblock doesn't address how he'll move forward ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Apologies thanks for undoing my rollback on above page was totally unintentional only just realised i had done it when looking at my contributions. Using my iphone whilst at work is not the best idea seem to accidentally press something every so often. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for trying. I appreciate it :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pulled my hair out on that one ... just couldn't get through to them, sorry :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Halo my dear

I never disrupted any community discussion, There are only 2 editors discussing about the article deletion issue me and other editor If u dont know please please please stop accusing and abusing fellow editor please please please I am very well following the rules (Vensatry234 (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).

*sigh* Even the way you say this shows you just don't get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Vensatry234

I'm not sure if you consider this edit warring, but as soon as the user's block expired they reverted their changes back into Rang De Basanti and again mentioned something about MikeWazowski not being an admin. I figured I'd leave it to your discretion because I wasn't sure if this action fell within the rationale for the last block.--v/r - TP 15:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he was caught socking anyway ... thanks for the heads-up! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shii_reported_by_User:Shii_.28Result:Blocked_72hrs_.29

Popping in to let you know Shii contacted me off-wiki about this; I left both a message on the noticeboard and on the article's talk page. Hopefully the current revision might be palatable to both editors. humblefool® 23:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Shii

Actually, I hadn't noted his sarcasm. Text is one of those mediums that it can often be difficult to detect if you don't know the person, and before yesterday I hadn't interacted with him before. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. As per the edit notice above, please try and keep conversations together on one page ... I am watching your talkpage for replies. Did you answer the question about whether he formally violated WP:NPA that many times for all those warnings? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And the notice on my talk page says I don't watch other talk pages. Since you stated the conversation, we should be following my rules. :-p That said, I gave one notice for each occurrence. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if you don't watch pages, and I do ... and this conversation started on your page, why is it not continuing there where it started and belongs (according to policy)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to that policy. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me-123567-Me (talk • contribs)

I think I'm starting to understand User:Shii's frustration now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign my last post. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Goat Island

There are many islands named Goat Island, including Goat Island, Trinidad and Tobago. The correct title for that article should be Goat Island (Trinidad and Tobago), and I have placed an entry at wp:requested moves. Your WP:OWN attitude and "final warning" on my talk page are clear abuses of power. I recommend you relax and work with me on this instead of all this posturing, or I will escalate. Jokestress (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone else already replied on your talkpage regarding this. You'll also need a better reading of the manual of style regarding titles of articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and please allow me to clarify one aspect: my first polite post on your talkpage was your first level of warning. That was the correct time to return to all of the articles you did the same error to, and fix them. Instead, you re-did the edit (contrary to WP:BRD) marking it as "pedantry". This showed that it appeared that you a) had no desire to edit collaboratively, b) had little desire to follow the principles of WP:CONSENSUS, c) were clearly going to force someone else to go and fix all of the changes instead. For this reason, your next warning went from level 1 to level 4. Cooperation goes a long way on this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One: your first post was not polite. Two: please make your case for retaining the current title at Talk:Goat Island, Trinidad and Tobago. I'm not really interested in discussing your level of civility. Jokestress (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was very polite. I have moved the page - there was absolutely no need for an RM - the original article was created based on a previous MOS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Man your good! I guess being on Wikipedia so long makes me forget about the newcomers not knowing these things. I should be more careful.Gregory Heffley (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is my frownie face

[1] You could have said "OR" and left it at that, without a blanket smear on the high opinion protestors have of themselves. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have interviewed people who took part in protests, riots, including people arrested. I recently interviewed some from Occupy Ottawa. Fluff, no real meaning, but thinking they're somehow actually making a real difference ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OR :-P But seriously, regardless of your view of them, didja have to say it? Still wearing my frownie face. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

... maybe it was the Jerry Seinfeld in me. Just have to go off with the "what is it with all the..." :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

heh, I hear that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Intimidation

Editor clearly did not read anything I wrote, now just making stuff up
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since you have participated in yesterday's events, and even at one point (justly in my opinion) objected to other users personal attacks against me, I am dissapointed that you seem to resort to intimidation in your "advice" that you posted on my page. I have read some of the policies and pages on this site, and browsed a bit how things go on here, and see that things are, as always, more complex than on the first glance. Why do you suggest that after all the very upsetting intimidation and harrasment, that I recieved on the ANI page, which caused quite a bit of stress to me and to which I was unable to respond, I would have no right to complain about it, and would be "banned" (which seems to be a pretty extreme measure, and as you pointed out is different from block that I received - but even in policy about banned users it is written It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them.). I reviewed what happened on ANI page, and the most offensive personal attacks did not come from the offending admin (who did throw some insults but was later concerned about showing to the rest of the community that he did not do anything wrong), but by "Baseball Bugs", who, as it turn outs, has a long history of harrasment and personal atacks against other editors, and has been blocked several times for this [2]. Although he received many warnings to stop his abuse at ANI page, he did not, and even attacked another sysop for which he received warnings both on his page and on ANI page too (unsurprisingly, although his abuse of admin was not as severe as against me, this caused stronger reaction). I do not see why complaining about this would cause me to be blocked (or even "banned" as you suggest on my page, which I find rather intimidating) - unlike the "edit war" situation, in this case Baseball Bugs was harrasing me while I had absolutely no interaction with him, and there is no rule against protecting users own dignity (in fact, at many points in the policies, the importance of rules of "civility", "no personal attacks", "assuming good faith" etc. have been stressed over and over again, and they all have been severely violated in my case; I even found at one place that it is wrong for experienced users to object to unfamiliarity with the rules by the less experienced users). And why would an admin (or indeed any other user) would be, justly, able to object to BB's unacceptable behavior, and I would not? Also, by your own estimate, most people on ANI board did not read my posts in depth, rather they relied on assesment of other users. "Baseball Bugs" has in several occasions misrepresented the circumstances, all while I was not able to respond. For instance, he replied that my comment, transfered by Swarm from my talk page, that I did not violate 3RR rule, is untrue - while it can be easily checked from my edit history that I made 3 reverts, and sysop made 4 (that is a coincidence, noone pointed my attention to 3RR or BRD policies; his threat of block turned me to the noticeboard page, and the uselessness of the reverts turned my attention to the talk pages) - weather this is deliberate misunderstanding or not, I do not know, but user BB effectively tried to represent me as a liar. He also said that it is a "blatant lie" that the offending op tried to get an edge in edit dispute from his sysop powers - by threatening to block me; he in fact admited that he had intended to follow on his threat [3] to be honest, blocking was actually going to be my next step, which would be a case of conflict of interest - and this was the reason, together with his calling me a "vandal" and refusal to talk, to go to the noticeboard page (only then did the offending admin become kinder, suggesting that I start a new page etc. - but after the block and his unblocking, he resorted to his "racist" and "bad faith" insults). Worst of all, the sources that I provided were referred to as not corresponding to the text I inserted. In fact, if you check the sources (which were for the two incidents; I later, via Swarm, pointed to sources for other incidents, and to the wu wei generalities), you will see that there is nothing regarding the incidents themself that does not correspond to the sources - the suicide/turist incident and the little girl incident are fully supported from the sources. However few people bother to read the articles, and when someone says that sources do not support the text, while I cannot respond, that is pretty much a below the belt blow. Some people questioned the general wu wei stuff, however this is in fact quite uncontroversial and easy too check - there are some useful references for this too, some I pointed via Swarm in my second ANI post. The thing which is NPOV (or rather it would fall under WP:SYNTH, as I see is in the policies) is the link between the two. It is not true that I misrepresented the sources, but some editors (Basseball Bats included) tried to represent me as dishonestly using the sources. Now, the whole incident did cause quite a bit of stir and soul searching in China and in the world, and making cultural link is not something that is out-of-the way - in fact, as it can be found out from many sources, there are links to Chinese fear of complications (cases when people were punished for helping - BBC and LA times articles talk about that, and I mentioned it too as well as Good Samaritian-type laws). I later found this link [4], where professor Joachim I. Krueger from Brown, speaking for CNN, says that this is classic case of voulonteer dilemma and says the following: If an incident occurs in a foreign country or culture, it is easy – maybe tempting, as we grapple with something so baffling – to conclude that the particular culture is to blame, that it is being callous, uncaring or egotistical … but it would be too facile to think that apathy in the face of others’ suffering is a signature of the local culture. So, the synthesis, although in retrospect is probably wrong, is not unnatural and it is understandable that such an inference about culture is made - showing just how accusations against me of being "bad faith editor", "racist", "Chinese apologist","troll" is wrong. Had I inserted the same example into voulonteer dilema instead of Chinese culture it would be quite appropriate (I might do that at some point), or indeed if an authority made connection with wu wei (which, despite of how people react, makes sense), then it wouldn't be original synthesis. This is just to point out to you in how many ways the damaging things and accusations against me are wrong. Finally, I also see that you were involved in a slimilar incident recently, in which you blocked another admin for 72 hours. Now, it seems to me (it is possible that I didn't get all the circumstances), that this sysop was not more guilty than the one I had conflict with. Is it true that his "edit war" involved a talk page reverts (and there were not even 3 of them) of deletion of talk page comments (which in your policies is not the same as in the article, the comments of other users are not to be removed, if I didn't confuse the things about the policies). He also made some personal attacks, essentially saying that user is juvenile, and in joking and disrespectful, but somewhat lighthearted manner. He was only unblocked when he admitted his mistake and appologized. Contrast this with the other sysop, who also made personal attacks and violated 3RR, refused to talk on the talk page or article talk page, threatened blocking while in edit dispute (and as he later admitted intended to use his blocking powers), who was unblocked without his admitting any fault (in fact, he indicated that he thinks block is ridicilous and that he was right all way, and that he feels it absurd to even having to justify his edit warring, in his own words I'm honestly shocked anyone could consider that an edit war, I'm honestly aghast that I even need to defend my reverts. etc), and in fact completely changed his tone from constructive (in the beginning of noticeboard, when he finally responded to me, making a suggestion to move the material esewhere) to insultive (once he was unblocked, but I was not). Perhaps I used the wrong noticeboard (I see that there is incidents noticeboard, and the case on the noticeboard was closed before I was able to respond properly), however, despite the evidence that the offending admin in my case got very lightly compared to the other sysop, certainly his abuse and insults were much lighter than the one by "Baseball Bugs" (after all, he was blocked and this must have stressed him, and I can extend good faith that he thought my edits were "complete crap", which, as I explained there, they were not - even if synthesis is wrong, that does not mean that it is trash much less that such offensive words should be used). Of all the users (mostly admins but some are not - seems like Baseball Bugs, with his long history of harrasment, is not allowed to be sysop, which is a good thing), who participated in what felt like verbal lynching at that ANI page, "Baseball Bugs" had most malicious, inciting coments aimed at turning other users into trashing me, and while there were quite a few insults, his influence seems to have had the worst effect - both in characterizing my edits as something they were not, and in direct pattern of abuse and insults. It is certainly not his first time - compared to my treatment for what happened yesterday, the tollerance of his ongoing harrasment of many users over many years seems to be quite strange. I certainly do not like injustice and abuse of power (of which there is a lot in this world, and some forms of which you are only too lucky not to know about), but are not (despite of what you might think) unreasonable. It is natural that privileged people stick to each other, and so, the fact that a sysop was blocked (and in fact there is another case of similar situation) is certainly a good thing showing that, albeit imperfectly, the rules can be followed here. So it is both unnecessary, contraproductive and unfair to try to intimidate me - if there is a procedure against abuse, and abuse is occuring form a particular user in a repeated and persistant way, which includes harrasment, repeated personal attacks and ignoring all warnings over YEARS, against many users, than I do not see how complaining against severe abuse (that only started on ANI page in earnest as I was blocked and unable to respond, to the delight of certain type of editors) that I was victim of yesterday, could be a disservice to community. Unfortunately, I know too well that NOT complaining about abuse leads to its repetition, until it becomes endemic in a community. Hopefully this place, that seems to have elaborate system of very reasonable policies, does not subscribe to supressing legitimate complaints about behaviour that is strictly against numerous policies that are formulated as important. In this short time which included extreme frustration of yesterday's injustice, I have come accross to both common human falacies and decent people (like Swarm, but there were a few other users that, although likely mostly motivated by defense of the admin who fairhandedly issued the two blocks, also objected to the worst abuse against me), so certainly I may find this hopefull, and also hope that your attempt at intimidation is just an error in judgement that can happen to everyone. Wangleetodd (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Holy... leapin'... Zoinks! Doc talk 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		Awarded to Bwilkins for pretty much being the best talk page stalker ever :) Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's some high praise :-) There's some darn good stalkers out here (right y'all?) Thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(was stunned at his quickness) Speaking as the first one to have ever received that award, I will vouch that he is good.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to your strong worded review....

You've probabbly seen my response to ed already but ill post it here as it will probably answer your questions.

blocking me wouldnt solve the siutation; chances are in the long run Wikipedia itself will be deprived of a decent, young editor. Something it soley needs.

It wasn't really a revert war since i didnt revert anything. It started off as me posting a query about his username and he deleted it and said it was rubbish/nonsense which i was a little annoyed about but i merely posted a new message asking him why he reverted it. He responded by plastering a rather strong toned message on my talk page (some of which i didnt actually understand or know how to interpret)and i was genuinelly offended by it and i said it was ironic he was pointing the sword at me (i was still perfectly polite) and i pointed out that himself had already been banned for 3RR, vandalism , annoying others and also about his username (he was even indef banned) and i urged him to stop this madness otherwise it will be both our downfall, and i ended the message with something he put on my page; there is no further discussion. Thus ending the matter.

However, for one reason or another he decided to report an already closed matter breaching WP:LETGO or even WP:DEADHORSE and further fueling the aready tense situation, and making an unessarary judgement. Could you point out the exact source of what i did wrong, or better still what would you of done if you were in my shoes?

On a more important issue, I absolutely can interact with other editors , provided they wish to interact with me. If you check my contribs i have welcomed and assisted new recruits (which in my opinion are the most important aspect of wikipedia since without them wikipedia will soon become useless) and its rather sad that some more experienced members trample on them (as i was when i was new) or help them for the sake of furthering their own prestige. Also i have been encouraging retired members to rejoin wikipedia, most notably User talk:Barts1a and i was helping him resolve a dispute he had with another editor (which caused him to quit in protest/disgust) diplomaticially and encouraging him to move on.

I have also made good relations with my mentor, Lionel who i get on very well with; along with other editors who i am great friends with, notably User:Σ and User:Jasper Deng whom have helped me (and i have helped) to progress in wikipedia.

Also , if you want me to break down your arguement to further your understanding then i will.

Having first encountered you today, Dont judge a book by its cover I highly doubt you'll listen to anything constructive from this review absolutely bad faith judgement, afterall why would i put myself up for review and then not give a toss about what it says? Why would i make a constructive criticism page? After all, you failed to listen to a half-dozen people today alone.Who were the other four? You appear, based on your edits, to get into needless arguments, then wonder out loud how you go there. You need to learn to listen to constructive criticism. You need to read the first time, rather than hound. You need to shut up and listen a little more. You have positive edits just not positive relationshipsnot true , see my previous statements above.

At any rate, thank you for the review its nice to know what others think of me from time to time. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 10:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

Thanks for your comments on Jimbo's talk page. That thread has now been archived so it can't continue there. What would you advise I do next? I really, really want to move forward with this. And there are only two places, as far as I can see, with unused accounts that would need to be usurped. I'm quite happy to do the legwork; in something nine years in the making that really doesn't worry me at all. -- Earle [^t/_c] 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Reichle (Brian Redban)

How can you not consider somebody who is listened to by thousands of people on a regular basis and not notable? simply do a search on the itunes store for the 'joe rogan experience' and you will see just how popular his primary podcast is. Please refrain from using personal bias when moderating wikipedia, it certainly doesn't make you look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.192.47 (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal bias? I'd never heard of the guy, so I searched for him, and found him to be utterly non-notable. Not assuming good faith, and trying to promote someone of little notability certainly doesn't make you look good. Even worse if you are actually him trying to promote yourself - now that would be funny. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Hi! I allready wrote before to some users and administrators about problems at the page about Ukrainians. There is a problem of eraseing important data or sources (vandalism) from the page by unknown user, sometimes it is only prvocation, but it is allways there. Maybe some previously known users are doing that, I can't point at the moment, but it is still a big problem because there is a clear goal for provocation. I would be very grateful to you, only to look what you can do with this site to be protected. It is useless me to warn those users, because I think there is no any effect of it. Thanks for you time!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)