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

Eaglestorm

Giving incorrect details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinoy_Big_Brother:_Unlimited "Divine allegedly excluding him." supposed to be "Divine unfairly excluding him." I told him many times to change it yet he insists on not changing it. We even had an edit war...he called be a tard. I mean, do you administrators tolerate that kind of behavior? Cratiod (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Cratiod

As you can see, I have already addressed the WP:NPA. I'm taking to interest nor sides in the content dispute at the moment, although if edit-wars occur, then I'll get further involved - although I would hope that dispute resolution is more successful (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He still won't follow. He has a very high regard of himself. He will take only his facts into consideration. He is also mean and blunt to other members. If, for example, user X said something like: Pinoy Big Brother's darlings, Eaglestorm would make am edit summary like: PBB's darlings? How stupid. Furthermore, he removed my kindest dispute from his talk page without replying and also called me an idiot and a fantard. I would at least want a reply from him explaining and not a post deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratiod (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Cratiod

Yes, it's more polite to respond, however he cannot be coerced into it. I do have to admit that I would revert the word "darlings" as WP:PUFFERY, and possibly with a sarcastic tone too :-) He's not going to get blocked currently - I am keeping an eye on him, and have been for some time. As I said, I warned him for his WP:NPA (which funny enough he reverted and suggested that you had put me up to it). Let me know if it escalates (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He still calls his fellow users "gloaters", "idiotic", "ignorant" and stupid... Cratiod (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Cratiod

Please look beyond me

I'm disappointed that my involvement in BusterD's Rfa may have, in your opinion, cost him some support votes. I don't nominate many editors, least not since late 2006...the only one since then besides BusterD was Mike Cline in early 2010...the issue of me being the nominator didn't seem to be raised then, so I must have really disappointed some people subsequently...all everyone has to remember is that I am not running, but I generally pick great candidates as shown at my userpage.--MONGO 03:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mongo, the sheer way that you misrepresented and completely screwed up with such horrible judgement the last (and I think only) time we had an interaction has unfortunately not allowed me to trust you judgement at all. I don't hold "grudges", but that level of action will stick with me until proven otherwise. I did say I will look further, and I think I was rather gentle with my neutral comment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You would have to refresh my memory...are you talking about HJ Mitchell removing my rollback rights?--MONGO 13:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to find some sort of explanation for your assessment of my actions which would help me not leave such impressions with yourself and/or others in the future...but for the life of me I do not know what incident I "misrepresented and completely screwed up with such horrible...." (Etc.) Without a discussion on this matter, it would be hard for me to be able to alleviate your concerns.MONGO 14:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general. Thank you. causa sui (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Lazy

So you won't mind if I call you a vandal/sockpuppet some time in the future? Or alter people's comments numerous times despite being explicitly warned not to? Cool, I guess I can treat this website just like a discussion forum then! What fun! Twafotfs (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Not really. All of that is not allowed unless you have a specific and legitimate reason to do so. You may want to check out the policies of Wikipedia. I'll post them on your page if not already posted.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty rich calling me "lazy" ... you were trying to get admins to do what you had failed to attempt yourself. There was no immediate block that was going to occur. If you're trying to prove long-term issues, that's what WP:RFC/U is for. I closed it because the two of you were finally actually "talking it out". Admins are not parents: it's not our job to intervene and choose sides. Your role as an editor to try try and work it out with the other party FIRST. I finally saw some wonderfully open and productive discussion between the 2 of you - the type of discussion that was probably going to lead to understanding and resolution. So, take that discussion and continue it between the two of you - work it out. If problems recur that require and immediate block, then come to ANI. Otherwise, it's WP:RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, how on earth would you expect me to know what WP:RFC/U is? My complaint was not with the issue at hand, which was resolved by DougWeller long ago. I thought that it was very clear that I was "trying to prove long-term issues". And I never asked for him to be "blocked". Also, I think you have a funny definition of "wonderfully open and productive discussion"! Twafotfs (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's my definition of "wonderfully open and productive discussion (extracted from ANI):

User:T: "I am not claiming I acted like an angel"

User:B: "I agree that we both could have handled it better"

User:T: "I've apologized for exceeding 3RR (even though I wasn't aware of it)"

Call me crazy (which rhymes with lazy), but that's very positive, and shows you're both actually active listening (or reading, whatever the case). That's exactly the type of discussion you should have had with each other before ever filing at ANI. As someone trained in mediation, it was the perfect place to send the both of you off to finish your understanding of each other's position. Don't ever be offended by humour - it's actually the best way to resolve a lot of issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, none of that has anything to do with the substance of my complaint. I wasn't posting about the content, or about me exceeding 3RR, I was posting about BabbaQ's pattern of uncivil, aggressive behavior and history of personal attacks. He edited other people's comment's before, was expressly warned by an admin not to do so again, with the words "consider yourself advised", and yet he continued to do so. Add to that the list of accusations and insults. And yet, nothing...... Twafotfs (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The root of the complaint was the interactions between the 2 of you - and they were improving. The second thing you have already done is to bring people's attention to potential future problems from them: they are being watched, so let it happen. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sig

Re: The sig I'm using. If you really have an issue with it, you could have brought that issue to the talk page I'm also using rather than leaving snarks at various noticeboards. As far as "stealing", perhaps you've read the following:

"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

Similarly, if you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them."

Nothing we do or write or create in Wikipedia belongs to us, ergo, it's not possible to steal what's left here or have what we create here stolen. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 16:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like all edits to articles are tracked in order to attribute them to who did them, or even derivative works from images, it's similarly polite and common practice to attribute where you borrowed from. My little bits of needling were intended for you to pick up on that standard practice by yourself without making a big deal out of it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer plain speaking. If you want to say something to me in the future, it'll be better received and your intentions better understood if you just say it. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 16:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if imitation is a form of flattery then Les must be paying Bwilkins a compliment. I had noted this ripped-off sig as I'm sure others have. Les, although something may be your right that doesn't always make it right if you know what I mean. My 2 cents.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Les, even if Wikipedia and its pictures may be a repository of free information, however, a signature that is copied is considered forgery. Signature's may or may not be free to the public but nonetheless, it is still considered stealing without asking for usage permission of something that was created by someone who hasn't explicitly given permission to allow users to copy and use it as their own. I would be particularly apprehensive if the layout of my signature were copied. (talk→ cyberpower ←track) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you catch my drift of what happens when copying other user's "property" as I like to call it. Here's an example for you. The basic layout is a copy of User:Hurricanefan25's and three other editor's layout. When I decided to use it, I asked for permission to copy it. The heading as well as the transclusion barrier on my page is a slightly modified version of User:Ryulong's who also had given me permission to copy it. It helps to avoid confusion and possible apprehension in the future.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, imitation is flattering, and I'm not trying to dissuade people who want to be like me ... however, attribution is key :-) If he chooses not to do it, it says more about him - indeed, it would show he doesn't deserve such an excellent signature :-p (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Then again, everybody has their own opinions about their signatures being copied but, BWilkins has a point. It says a lot about a person who just takes something without asking rather than asking before taking it. Some people will see it as flattering and some people will be apprehensive to it. I happen to be one that would be apprehensive to it particularly since my signature happens to substitute a template that defines the colors of my signature.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI unprotect

An IP being reported at ANI can't respond, could you un-protect ANI? Cheers Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was already taken care of by this time :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay

Your statement for the MF case looked most useful, I was going through your contribs looking for a diff to it and was glad to see you've already made it into an essay. Just as a fyi, I posted a link to it on one of the arb boards . FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :-) I'm honoured that it was appreciated (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj birth year

Just FYI, that piece which you think is real is a fake. There are several different ones circulating around (once with her listed address as Los Angeles, which is not true and another that lists her birth year as 1984). There are different versions of that paper that's supposedly from the Dallas PD. In fact, Nicki Minaj herself has openly claimed that she was born in 1984 in Trinidad & Tobago (in her own words). Her official facebook, which she maintains herself, lists 1984 as her birth year. Bastian (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, you should not be astonished

Re [1]; while I agree with the thought, unfortunately that's not observed in practice. One of my few article space contributions was dealing with: apparent weight [2] sat as a zero source, original research, textbook page for years. To get it changed to its current RS stub (which pretty duplicates the existing Weight#Apparent_weight) took months of discussion on the talk page, a twice relisted and ultimately failed Afd. If with followed a consensus on a merger proposal which was ignored and slow edit warred over, referral to WP:DRN which was then forum shopped to Wiki project physics. The usual accusations of malfeasance after responding to a WQA are much easier to deal with! Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What's with the guy?

• Andriabenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• So touchy~! And with a big dose of EW impulse to boot, what gives? BTW, Harpy New Year~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Scorpion0422

This is user is really at it. He just sent me a YouTube video, or very offensive content. The link to the video is on his talk page, and I really believe he's being really patronizing. He made a personal attack on me. He did. According to your guidelines, it says here:

“ Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. ”

Is a personal attack. I hope you sort this situation out. TrebleSeven (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking back on his talk page, he has made a bit of another offense. He removed your vandalism mis-identification notice on his talk page with an edit summary of, and I quote: "Blah blah blah blah blah". Honestly this editor sounds so un-constructive. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're calling the Bevis and Butthead "attacking"? Oh please, now you're pushing it. Ok, so you do not share a certain sense of humour, and certainly Scorpion should be slightly more sensitive. Yes, they removed a warning - which they are allowed to do, and it means they at least read it. I have zero clue why you continued to engage them whatsoever - you were practically asking for the continued degradation of the discussion. Don't follow them, but if you happen to see them improperly calling things "vandalism" in the future, let me know. Your best bet is to disengage from them; really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thank-you, Bwilkins. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - no TB templates

Regarding your revert, sorry but I missed that request in your edit notice. Happy New Year! -- Trevj (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about my account and a page needing to be moved

Sorry, I am a newbie at this. I'd like to rename the title of the article, "User:71.190.77.2/Love Eterne (2010)" which is confusing and not helpful to the more meaningful "Love Eterne (film)". From my understanding, an article name can be "moved" if the editor is a member of a group that has permission to do so such as the Autoconfirmed Users group. Any way to tell approximately when my account will reach the threshold to meet that requirement? Thanks.--Prz4587ill (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You will be autoconfirmed in < 24 hours. In the meantime, I can perform the move for you. I as well as most editors have the limited right to move articles. However, an article in userspace must remain in userspace and since the article is not public yet, I must inform the user first before proceeding.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks --Prz4587ill (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Just a quick question: Can you nominate more than one picture for PotD? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably yes - it would be considered for a different day, I expect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want to get in trouble for anything, that's all. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki

I was a little surprised that you told Protector of Wiki that any future un-ban requests must go through BASC. I was under the impression that since it was community imposed (and only "de facto", not by full consensus), he could apply for removal of the ban by going to the community. Have I missed something here? Worm^TT · (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed it to "should likely" - my belief is that a future similar community !vote would be rather catastrophic for them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

He would probably have a better chance with BASC than with the community...but not if his approach hasn't changed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Bwilkins, that makes sense. If he doesn't have some sort of attitude transplant, I can only see another ball of fire. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've got it right with Protector of Wiki?

Are you sure you've got this right? Isn't a community ban more along the lines of when no one is prepared to unblock? Clearly there are very many editors who are prepared to unblock and it seems to me far fairer for the default assumption to be in the blockee's favour. Certainly I don't feel that "clear, unequivocal consensus" is the right standard to be using for an unblock request, and therefore I would ask that you re-open things - if not to reopen the discussion of PoW's block itself, then at least to discuss whether your close and interpreation of policy was correct.

Having said that if you disagree with me about re-opening it, I will argue a little bit more with you here, then if you refuse to budge I will give up. So I don't care that much

Cheers,

Egg Centric 21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm following the policy :-) A community !vote where there's no consensus to unblock = de facto ban (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you but where is that policy as I can't find it myself Egg Centric 21:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See also the de facto ban of TT by the same process (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, but TT was a prick - maybe this guy is too, I don't think I've encountered him before. And if the choice is having him and TT unblocked, or him and TT blocked, I plump for the latter every time. Hell, even if you're being a rogue admin, I sure as hell ain't continuing this conversation if it could end up with TT back on wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Egg Centric 21:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

...now let's be careful with those WP:NPA's! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IMDB as a reliable source

Hello, may I ask you to help me argue with the statement that IMDB is not a reliable source. It has worldwide coverage, strict eligibility criteria for titles, owned by Amazon, there are millions of references to this source in the web and other media. It is considered reliable by millions! Wikipedia is also user generated, but due to the policy is considered to be reliable source as well! May I ask to approve IMDB as a proper source and restore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silent_Life&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterFirst (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See here. When I can personally edit IMDb, it's clearly not reliable - and Wikipedia is not typically considered a reliable source either: ask any university professor (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I tried to make some changes (and delete) to the info I added to the Clignett article. So why is deleting info I added considered vandalism? --Clignett73 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-summaries are always useful :-) I have stripped out all of the geneology stuff. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, --Clignett73 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're still not doing them though ... right below the editing box is a small box called "Edit summary" - when you removed the text you should have created an edit summary that said "removing text that I put in that I realize does not belong" ... no warnings would have come! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think i have been getting it today, though. I haven't received any warnings. I've clicked the minor edit box.--Clignett73 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the changes on the article. I'd like to know if i can remove some of the sources Beaulosagne added, without any problem. I think some don't have to be there. It looks a bit 'messy'.--Clignett73 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

why?

I am writing an article about a persons contibution....with the valid source y u r deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asadwazir23 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See the answer I provided here. You're now also blocked for spamming/massive conflict of interest. You asked for help, and are now completely ignoring it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Very Interesting...

The more I look into this, the curiouser and curiouser it gets. First, I notice how similar the signature of this editor who's been borderline harassing another user that (coincidentally?) had been repeatedly harassed by a certain banned user. Then, upon further research, this. Do you know who I suspect that this really is? I'll give you one guess. A SPI report will be forthcoming. Doc talk 12:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, to say the least (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Filed. I know this is her in my gut; because the harassment of the same user led to identifying the other similarities in behavior and interests. Plenty of more evidence "in da woiks" for the SPI for any doubters, and I eagerly await a response from the active account. If we are wrong: I will trout DocOfSoc and myself and apologize profusely to Lhb1239. Doc talk 14:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)