User talk:DangerousPanda

Your challenge is to read and make one valid/needed edit to this random article. Click here if you accept the challenge.

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 30 days

Bubble tea!

-down load | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Wikilawyering? lol

You don't see me spouting alphabet soup. lol I don't do Wikilawyering. I do TV-lawyering. :) (Boston Legal etc fiction drama lights camera action etc) Proofreader77 (talk)

WP:OUTING

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bwilkins, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you believe Paul's claim that I outed someone. To the best of my understanding, this claim is false, and other editors familiar with the matter agree. CarolineWH (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you read the case linked to on the talkpage of your case. Do you like off-wiki stalking, massive personal attack or outing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That case has nothing to do with me. I want to understand what you're thinking about my actions so I'm asking you politely and directly. Others, including those who are more familiar with the details, have not concluded that my actions were any form of outing. If you disagree, I would appreciate it if you explained why. To remind you, at no point did I reveal any private information, and my only motivation was to determine whether a sockpuppet claim was true. By my understanding, this is not outing. If your understanding differs, please explain. CarolineWH (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a benefit of an editor such as myself being detached from the situation - those too close to it might not realize/wish to realize the potential issues. The case is very similar to yours. Wikipedia has processes to investigate sockpuppet accusations, and frontier-style justice is not permitted. You intentionally and knowingly contacted the workplace of an editor, having traced public information (an IP address). The potential repercussions are identical to the Ecoleetage case. You crossed a line. I'm hoping you realize the ethical and moral implications of what you did. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have one editor who openly used an IP directly associated with a company, and another who openly uses his real name. I've taken care never to mention the company name, nor did I reveal where the one who uses his real name works. There was research on my part, but no outing. My motive was to confirm that CheckUser was wrong, not to intimidate or harass. It doesn't get any simpler than that. CarolineWH (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You called someone's place of work - it doesn't get any simpler than that. If you read WP:NPA as I linked to, you will have read "...actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery". It is not, nor shall it be your job to put people's jobs at risk in that manner, nor is it your job to "disprove" checkuser. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made no mention of Wikipedia and did nothing which might expose them to any sort of risk.

As for it not being my job to second-guess CheckUser, you couldn't be more wrong. The reason I did this research in the first place is that, like both the IP and the named editor, I was falsely accused of being SpotFixer. The CheckUser process is flawed and needs all the oversight it can get. CarolineWH (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot see that intent or not, someone could have lost their job by your actions, then I'm sorry, this discussion needs to go no further on my talkpage. It would have been far easier to admit that calling someone's place of work was probably wrong, than to attempt to justify it - it is NEVER justified. Wikipedia is a community, and that's not a community action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CarolineWH (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Ouch

Saw your comment at ANI and, call me sensitive, I think it sucked. I'm no expert at ANI-etiquette, and I hope to never be, but I don't think my edit there deserved the lashing commentary you delivered. You totally misread my intent — and then you posted that I think admins are idiots and I'm playing petty "last-word" games. (Yes, that is how your comment reads.)

The editor in my report has already wasted an enormous amount of my time, and has now escalated the situation to a new level by indicating that he is no longer open to reason, and won't be acknowledging the input of others. That shoots down the BLPN submission I've been working on as a solution. The situation is frustrating enough without having to deal with unwarranted personal attacks from editors. Your observation that "dozens of admins are already watching" may hold true of the ANI board in general, but not of my particular incident report once it has scrolled to the top of the page. As another editor of that thread previously advised me, "Eyes seem to be in other places at the moment. I think you should repost the above in the ANI thread", dozens of admins are not always watching every new development in those reports. The situation changed, so I requested additional review; if you come up with actual constructive comments on how I should have handled it, you let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you know that my own posts throughout the thread have been understanding of your position. In all my experience at ANI, even though you have a strong case - and even the right case, the louder you "complain", the less that will be done towards it. As such, I believe you did yourself a major disservice my offering your "closing argument"...it wasn't a tongue-lashing, it was a frustrated response to what had come so close to getting some form of resolution.

Another major error in ANI is unarchiving a thread, even though you may feel it had not be dealt with. The best way to deal with a "stale" thread is this: let it fade. Collect a few days of new, strong evidence. Create a brand new thread, with a link to the one in the archives, and basically say "look - even though we were patient, and the user knew his actions were wrong, look what they continue to do as disruption to the project." Ensure your post is succinct, short, and that the policies you quote can actually lead to the action you want. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Most of what you have said here rings true, and makes sense. I still don't understand how you could confuse my attempt to renew the case with a new focus (the editor's tendentiousness) with an attempt to close the case with a "last word" or "closing argument". Those are opposite intentions, and I believe my intent was clear. Even so, your feeling that I wasn't helping matters was still likely correct - moreso than I wanted to admit when I first read your comments. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second opinion.

I noticed over at AfD/Dancing with the Stars(season 10) that one of the editors summarily decided to redirect the article and declared that discussion can stop now. I thought this was a bit heavy-handed but I see no real problem with the outcome. Am I just getting uptight about the "righteousness" of the edit or is there something left to discuss? It's not the ends, it's the means that bothers me. Padillah (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a 50/50 split between delete and redirect, a WP:NAC was probably out of line. Edits are allowed to edit during an AfD, but usually turning it into a redirect during that is not recommended. That said, based on WP:IAR, I think the right overall decision was made. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gregaga

Just a note that Gregaga has continued to make edits pretty much exclusively to the charts on their userpage after the warning you gave them. I'm not sure what the next would be for this type of situation. Ridernyc (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reminded them, and offered to give them a hand. We'll see what happens. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you up on that offer about you guys moving my page. But will it still look the same? Gregaga (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks perfect :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your autoreviewer request

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have granted autoreviewer rights on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This will have little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dougla

You're right, actually, about my edit. I was quite a bit hasty in my edit and it gave it a different flavour than the true meaning. It's hard to imagine being so hasty as to not read the end of the paragraph but I did it. Keep up the good work, --Noopinonada (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I saw it as an honest mistake at the end of a long paragraph. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piscine clue adjustment

I've seen the work you do at WP:WQA, and I think it is on the whole quite good. Get out of the scrum at ANI re: WikiGreekBasketball, though. Anyone with half a brain can see what he is up to; there is no need to goad him into further displays of ridiculousness. Let an uninvolved admin handle it – you've done all you can, and he'll either shape up fast or be whacked with the banhammer real soon now. — æk ^Talk 12:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fish ... and I dropped out of the discussion long ago. 'Tis a shame to lose long-time contributors in a meltdown. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bling

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For this. It takes some guts to really assume good faith and offer help to an editor who's pretty much scorned by most of the community now. Even if WGB ends up being a hopeless cause, we could use more editors who make the effort like you did. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, thank you - this is a truly unexpected honour for a Saturday morning :-) . (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And by the way... I notice you said to WGB that you had an RFA before and it didn't pass; if you're ever interested in doing one again, let me know! I don't believe I participated in your first one and I don't know what was discussed there, but based on how you handled yourself with WGB I'm almost certain I'd support you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond right away...got a bit sidetracked for a couple days. Anyway, I did read through some of the RfA (not the whole thing), and to be honest I wasn't really concerned by anything there. It seems a lot of people opposed over some recent comments you had made, but by now they are certainly not recent anymore, and I definitely wouldn't have qualms about nominating or supporting you in a future RfA. Of course, if you have someone else in mind that's fine—I've only nominated one other person, WP:Requests for adminship/Shubinator, so if you want a nominator who's more of an RfA regular I totally understand. But if you don't have anyone else lined up and you get interested in doing an RfA, just let me know! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments

I understand all of that. I was wrong before and I deserved that ban. But they banned me for a week. I come back and do nothing wrong, break no rules, didn't do anything bad and immediately the same group of users wants me banned permanent this time. That's just so wrong. Besides, even though everything you say is true, I didn't have a problem with the RFA except for one person and that was the admin guy Coffee. He was so overboard and out of line with his comments. But I ignored it and I let it go. Then he began following behind me and deleting and removing my edits. I reverted my edits and he threatened to ban me with a personal message that if I ever reverted any of his edits again he would ban me for a month.

I reported this because it was so out of line. I reported him on the notice board and then attacks against me just poured in and it's the same people attacking me now, only now I have not done anything wrong. So I know for a fact that Coffee is out of line and about 7 different editors including about 3 admin have told me that he is way out of line and constantly breaks civility rules. Yet, when I reported him the response was that the other admins decided to ban me. I admit I got really extremely mad and frustrated and I did deserve the ban for all the insults I made. But understand that was after they banned me for a day and then even after that the people kept attacking me at my talk page. I got really mad and I told them off at my talk page and then they banned me for a week and banned me from my talk page.

That whole thing is just so wrong. I know I was wrong too but actually I was the least wrong and Coffee caused it all. This time I just came back and did nothing wrong and they request a permanent ban against me right away. And the thing that really gets me is how everyone attacked me for "temperament" and "civility" on my RFA but Coffee is already an admin and he is just insulting people left and right and breaking rules all the time. I don't understand how one person can RESPOND to someone's insults and that excludes them from being an admin, but another person (Coffee) can actually START insults to people over and over and he's an admin? And I know that what Coffee is doing is unacceptable. I also know that the same people keep defending him and attacking me if I bring up his attacks, so there is a cabal. I also know that despite all the attacks and harassing from Coffee every time I report it, not only is it ignored, but the admin then threaten me for reporting it. There is something seriously wrong with this site that such crap like this is allowed to go on here. If you know how I can report Coffee and have it actually looked at and not get in trouble for reporting him then I would really appreciate that help. It's really bad that if you are an admin you can just harass people and never pay any consequence for it. I am positive he does this to bunches of people and has probably gotten many good editors unfairly and improperly banned from the site. In sports we call people like Coffee cancers. They eventually ruin whatever team they are on. In this case it is cancers like him that ruin this site.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I am not allowed to post at the notice board then?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can drop the discussion page now. I can't talk about it if it gets used against me negatively. Sorry. Thanks for all your help though. You don't have to spend any more of your time on it.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At no point are there any attacks, and I dislike the suggestion that there is. I'm giving you honest, open interpretation. The idea was to in part vet your concerns so that you could file your RFC/U if needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say there was an "attack". I said you posted negative about me on the noticeboard over this after you told me it would not be mentioned there. Again, thanks for your help but I can no longer be as trusting as I once was here after what I feel is a great deal of unfair treatment and harassment against me by many editors. I am not saying you are trying to trick me, I am just saying I have to consider that possibility for my own protection and this is not being paranoid, it is based on how I have been treated by others here.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a process, and as you know, no discussion is secret on Wikipedia, nor did I say it could be. My goal was to clarify your issues and advise you if you should proceed. It was honest and forthright. As I had announced that I was going to try to help on ANI, I updated them as to my challenges so that nobody mistakenly believed it was over. Unfortunately, I believe that you continue to fail to grasp the meanings of policies - and those policies are key to Wikipedia's functioning. I'm sorry that you took honest attempts at assistance in any other way. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I do understand the policies?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly no...none of them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I have been reading them and I understand what is said there.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is one thing, understanding is only shown by correctly interpreting them. Having read your replies as I tried to help you - and I clearly showed them according to policy - you continued to disagree. You unfortunately have very little understanding of those policies. I am also wondering why you still want to participate in RFA - it will be literally YEARS before the community will trust you after the last two RFA's of your own, and your response in someone else's RFA. Wikipedia is not a game. The 1-month "ban" from RFA does not prevent you from reading: you will learn exactly what it takes to become an admin someday. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subtlety at AN/I

... is a lost cause. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and here I simply thought it was a lost art :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deserve that for trying for subtlety at bash-you-in-head-ville. ;) --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

twitch, twitch

Before I go further insane, can you fix your redlink at the top of here? tedder (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I see it was fixed. Sorry to give ya the DT's! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

Thanks for the heads-up, but I honestly don't know what could have happened that would make it different. And, honestly, don't know where to look or what to do to remedy the situation. Any suggestions? --SkagitRiverQueen 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay...I went to my preferences and unchecked a box that I don't think was checked before - I was in there the other day and must have checked the signature preference box not thinking it would make such a drastic change. Sorry for any confusion and thanks again for bringing it to my attention. :-D --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you found the fix! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Applause for debate participation!

Delighted to see your addition on User talk: Jimbo Wales. (I remember your beautifully designed signature having appeared on my talk previously, I think. ^;^)

Note: I have responded (under User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Discussion) with a haiku regarding "Negative #1." :-) -- Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page I did

Post on - at least once I think

Some time back, I'm sure.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax new messages

It is generally advised to avoid doing imitating the Wikisoftware features. See Wikipedia:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the ANI, "generally avoid" and "forbidden" are two different things. Calling for sanctions because of a "generally avoid" is not going to be successful. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the misunderstanding

I didn't know how the voting procedure operated. I assumed I only had one vote and that it was understood what my vote was without me having to actually voice it on the voting page. I'm only practicing how to do this page programming stuff and I don't know how most of it works, so I bet I'll be making lots of mistakes. I'll probably keep making the same mistakes too, unless other users are helpful toward me. For instance, can you please direct me to something that explains the deletion procedure including the time frame and allowable input on the deletion discussion page, rules for voting, etc. (Just in case I ever have to deal with that again. I won't be voting on others' proposed deletions since that is just troll feeding.) Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic place to start is WP:DELETE - it lists and links all over the place. Remember one key thing: ANY page must relate directly to Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT banned from RFA

The decision was that there was no punishment and I was NOT banned from it. I will be extremely angry if you try any more proceedings against me and i will fight it extremely hard as I will be fully justified in filing a grievance against you at that point.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT banned from RFA. There is NO BAN from it. It was accepted that I did nothing wrong and did not deserve any punishment or sanctions. Now if you push me again I will report you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]