User talk:DangerousPanda

Linkels Josy

I hope it doesn't look like I am wiki hounding this user at all, however I have all his pages on my watchlist and have gone around and cleaned all the pages he has added to his desired categories, more then likely, because of a bad cut and paste or wiki formatting. He has asked 2 people for help in his history here, [1] and [2] to which no one has replied, now he has also asked for an [review]. I do enjoy his editing summaries about being a fan of the UK, (Sarcasm) because UK editors are the only editors on the en.Wikipedia(Sarcasm). I just wanted to touch base with you since we both seem to trying to prod this user into proper usage of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs)

User talk:Tigre tiger

I did not tell her/him that he has to do anything, I was strongly suggesting that s/he creates longer articles than "Fermentelos is a town in Portugal". Inka888^ContribsTalk 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Another route would have been tagging the article with "needs expansion" and "needs attention from an expert" (or a couple others that are probably as valid) and then leaving a note on the creator's talk page saying "Hey, I noticed you created a new article, and I've tagged the article with... so that others will hopefully jump in and help out. You may also want to use the (underconstruction) tag to let people know you are working on expanding the articles... or work on the article in your sandbox (appropriate links, etc) until you've fleshed it out..." (etc).

Sometimes, strong suggestions, even with the best of intentions, can be interpreted the wrong way or scare off new editors not familiar with the best ways of starting articles. :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ThomasK

Greetings -- remember this guy? (Since you were the last one to interact with him on that talk page.) He's back again, whining because I busted him for editing daily for the last couple months or so, and range-blocked him. Sometimes he posts unblock requests claiming to be innocent, but sometimes, like tonight, claims that I'm persecuting him. I don't feel like giving him another chance ... he's had a lot ... do you? Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Daniel Case gave him what he deserves ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Someone is comparing you to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Much appreciated (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

funny!

You know, I've heard that expression so many times, but you found the moment of a lifetime to use it. And on UTM...who'd have guessed? I actually laughed out loud. And then I saw the section above this one on your talk page and laughed again. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Every so often, I slip a good one back in where it rarely belongs :-) Glad you laughed in both cases! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oy. Har, har. Keep your day job. Looks like your straight man decided he did enough explaining and went ahead with the change anyway. Should we shatter his bliss by telling him they're synonymous, or leave it be? --Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

?

I honestly think you have the wrong idea here- I requested unblock in good faith- I only requested it for User:Draxacoffilus as I helped him make the account in the first place(as this school is blocked from creating new users). But I know now that you're not allowed to do that, so it's a nonissue.

As far as the unblock request goes, I merely posted the template that was on my screen when I tried editing. Some talk pages work, and some don't... I didn't conjure that message out of thin air.

I really don't understand why you would post things like that on others talk pages, All I've done on Wikipedia is try to contribute to the project.

Regards, TheRasIsBack! 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

The fact that you could post elsewhere - including here - shows you weren't blocked. Considering everything, you were dicking around, plain and simple. As per the edit notice on this page, do try and keep conversations together (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

bot question

I've noticed the bot 7SeriesBOT doing a deletion, and leaving a summary like this: [3]. It doesn't delete a talk-page anyone other than the owner has written on, does it? Question: If only the user himself had written on that talk-page, shouldn't this be visible from the deletion-edit summary? Greswik (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If anyone else other than the person had written on the talkpage, it would be non-compliant with the bot's approved rules, and would not be deleted. U1 covers many things: draft articles, etc but only 1 edit summary can be used for all U1's ... so, stating that it meets U1 appropriately ... and linking to the policy ... is typically clear enough. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you have a look

As your online could you have a look at Currys & PC World new article we already have articles on both separately and not sure what speedy tag to place or which article to redirect too hanks. Mo ainm~Talk 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete seemed to make sense at this point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand thanks I see you added a little Salt also. Mo ainm~Talk 12:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour, however: discuss with the creating editor whether we should have one giant article about Currys and PC World as one topic, and redirect the individual articles to it? In other words, do we now merge the 2 individual articles into one - which might be what he's trying to do? Let me know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Mo ainm~Talk 12:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86 twisting/misinterpreting your comments

Hi, sorry to bother you but User:Sonicyouth86 has been suggesting your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACybermud&action=historysubmit&diff=392880454&oldid=391910091 to User:Cybermud were directed at me also. I think your text is fairly unambiguous and it's clear exactly who you were talking about (afterall I was the first person to suggest Cybermud should drop his SP accusation in relation to User:NickLevinson so many of the comments wouldn't make sense if directed at me). Anyway, Sonicyouth86 is adamant that you were warning me, suggesting I should "read the comment by the administrator about your conduct" etc and refuses to listen to me due to the fact I've issued a warning on their talk page previously (though I also gave one to Cybermud). Therefore, assuming you weren't talking about me, please could you possibly make User:Sonicyouth86 aware of the facts of the matter? Apologies for bothering you with this, but I think it would be better to nip this in the bud now and obviously there's more chance they might listen to you than myself. Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all I'm finding are walls'o'text...you'll need to show me where exactly he's suggesting the comment applied to others. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the second link, he's making the statement it applies to others on his: talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sonicyouth86#Misrepresenting_views.2Factions_of_others_.28aka_.22Wikipedia_according_to_Shakehandsman.22.29--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it really would be useful if you could take a look at this issue as the user is continuing with their disruptive behaviour and they might take notice of you. I know I forget the link before but I did provide it when you requested it. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up although I think you've made a small error. Your comments were actually directed at User:Cybermud, not User:Sonicyouth86. (I know it's confusing because both Cybermud and Sonicyouth86 had been misbehaving, particularly the later).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

About my request fo undeletion of Performance_(band)

Hello, I got no reply from you here : [4]. Would you please discuss it? Thanks, NikoDisorder (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You already stated the problem: no sourcing for the one claim that might make it notable. Other than that, it's not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I did my homework and found proper sources, they're here

NikoDisorder (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636.
Message added 11:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

#1, do not use TB notices on this page. #2, do not edit archives of ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

<sheepish look> I know I left you a previous TB above a couple weeks ago regarding a Dweeby123 discussion on HJM's page. (And only afterwards did I see your Edit Summary "ugh ... NO TB templates" in my Watchlist when you deleted someone else's {TB} a week later.) Should I delete my TB above (Oct 15)? I think having it sit there might be unintentionally encouraging others!

I kept thinking, "either BWilkins just added that 'No TalkBack' notice to his New Section page notice, or he's being VERY kind about my not seeing it!"

best regards, — DennisDallas (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nota Bene: Looks like my post may be moot, since the Archiving Bot came thru between the start & Save of my writing & cleared off mine & two other posts at the top of the Talkpage.

Still love to hear your feedback whether I was pre-No-TB or if you were just being kindly to a TB newbie. — DennisDallas (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)<r>

And for the Peanut Gallery looking on, I am not the current offender of this TB / ANI edit being discussed by BMW. — DD 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably patient :-) especially with newer editors! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hijacked Article

Hi there could you please help with my article Jatt its been hijacked by a user i have requested him on many occasions to stop but he is persistent. i started the article with accurate historical references which he has included into his own article based on a geographicly different tribe and now if i revert the changes by the the bot tells me i am the vandal. any help would be appreciated. thx--Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your article? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry not my article but the articleJatt--Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time...

...a 2-week old editor was blocked for edit warring on the O'Keefe and ACORN Video articles. He became frustrated and a little hostile, and was further blocked from editing his own talk page. An hour later, a new account is created. Quack. The account name has since been changed, but used to be similar to the name of an individual closely associated with O'Keefe and the ACORN videos. Quack, quack. After editing some obscure, totally unrelated articles about water skiers, the very next day this editor is editing the O'Keefe and ACORN Video articles -- from the identical point of view of the previously blocked editor, and are conversing supportively with each other. Quack, quack, quack. Since you have dealt with both accounts, can you tell me if there is reason to pick up a hunting rifle, or am I standing here with a fishing pole? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Take it to WP:SPI :) --Kudpung (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins RfC

Just to let you know that Ncmvocalist has taken it upon himself to close it. I have suggested he read Gavin's talkpage and revert himself, as you are still talking to Gavin, and I don't think he realises this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Gavin is just playing the martyr. "I was not involved in the draft, therefore I'm not commenting, wah". As long as it's closed with an appropriate summary/resolution that's all that matters - Gavin will not be replying, even though it's in his best interest to have done so. It's been open too long; spank him and move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall now stop banging my head against the brick wall ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was thinking of making the suggestion that it be hand-balled to the Arbitration Committee (it's not got any cases anyway), but the Community would still be doomed to the agony (and so would arbs). A ban discussion may be a less painful option if it's not hijacked by the subject. I'm seriously contemplating just making the proposal to the Community directly.... It seems the parties are onto this so we'll just have to wait until they are ready. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) 14:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Userspace draft: PIUG - 2

My most recent entry on having the Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) topic approved and moved to production has fallen off your current page again to your archive5 page.

I believe this entry should be ready to go based on my collaboration with TFOWR, who answered your call for feedback. TFOWR and I worked on "sourcing" as discussed on his talk archive page and my User talk page. In particular, I found an independent reference that covers the PIUG in support of much in the PIUG wiki article: Patent Users Group Celebrates 20 Years. Chemical and Engineering News, 86(23), 33-35 (June 9, 2008).

Is there anything else I can do besides be a "squeaky wheel?"

Tomwolff52 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn. I acknowledge TFOWR's help, but at the same time, another admin says it fails WP:CORP badly. I'm rather on the fence. I'm not sure where you studied statistics, but I don't like those numbers if they're truly representative. I wonder if it's not a bad time to pump it over to the article incubator, get some kind of 3rd opinion. Let me contemplate after a coffee. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been a while since I looked at this, and my memory isn't what it could be, so I'll need to revisit it. I do remember a lack of secondary sources when I looked last, however. Like Bwilkins, I'm caffeine-deficient right now. TFOWR 09:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

Bwilkins, ill admit that my edits could of been considered vandalism if the test edits I had made were incorrect. But the edits I made were in line with EVERY other page related to Northern Ireland. Thats called consistency. However the edits I made on NorthernCounties talk page were so far from vandalism, its unreal. If someone is going to throw around comments like vandalism, they had better be sure of their wording. NorthernCounties should be blocked, not just for describing my edits as 'vandalism' but prior to that had reinstated an inflamatory edit which I removed from my very own talk page.Factocop (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, perhaps it will sink in:

User:Factocop, User:NorthernCounties as main combatants, and extraneously User:Mo ainm as a little too knee-deep (added for clarification on 4-11-10)

1. One more whine from either of you about the other
2. One more fucking around on each other's talkpage (i.e. removing/restoring/refactoring)
3. One more incident that even vaguely smells of WP:HARASS or WP:WIKISTALK
4. One more snide remark about the other
5. One more mislabelled or unlabelled edit in any forum/article where you both edit

... and I will block both of you for disruption. Yes, both. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how I am getting a warning and for what? I have not had a whine about anyone, fucked about with anyones talk page harrased or wikistalked anyone, made a snide remark or mislabelled any edit. Mo ainm~Talk 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have meant to warn User:NorthernCounties instead -- he was the one who traded "reverting vandalism" comments with Factocop.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been on a bit lightly over the last 24hrs - and some of which was clearly to investigate, take action and document a challenging situation. I see that NorthernC has been appropriately notified - and appropriately blocked. As Mo ainm is involved in the dustups related to all of the people involved, theirs was to be a "just make sure you keep it all professional" notification regarding the above - which I think was pretty obvious. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Have I got this right Bwilkins' you gave an "official" warning to two editors, Factocop and NorthernCounties here at 11:15, 3 November 2010. At 13:42, 3 November 2010 Factocop is blocked here for edit warring, and then unblocked here saying they will "raise any future edits through discussion." Factocop asks and is given advice here on their flawed line of argument, which they completely ignore [5] [6], and escalate and inflame the situation moving the dispute to another article with this edit here, which the Admin has to revert. Factocop then starts with the personal attacks hereand here and is then given an "official" warning I assume here at 17:16, 3 November 2010 ignoring the advice they were given and refused to strike their comments.

NorthernCounties comments on this behaviour and is reverted with an interesting edit summery, in light of Factocops editing and personal attacks. NorthernCounties responds is reverted [7] and then blocked at 17:38, 3 November 2010. Yet Factocop persists on the article talk page, 17:55, 3 November 2010, and their first edit today is to continue to drag the dispute to another article, despite the warning of an Admin. They will no remove their comments and expect a response, and are determined to spread out this dispute on other articles. Maybe Admins and editors should take the advice of Baseball Bugs offered but will it be any time soon?--Domer48_'fenian' 10:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc talk 13:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuddle duddle. Thanks for letting me know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversial move

You seem to be active right now, so can you please revert the controversial move, for now, that The Celestial City made from Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain to Postage stamps and postal history of the United Kingdom without any discussion? Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain is the WP:COMMONNAME and has been discussed previously on the talk page. We can always talk a bout this again but all the authoritative philatelic literature, dealers and societies use that naming. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've reverted it. Looks like you already notified TCC and they recanted. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. ww2censor (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Good call. I blanked the whole NLT/uncivil mess and closed the ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm an idiot for having that perspective. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Scott_MacDonald Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, pretty sure you're not an idiot. Although WQA? Really? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with Malleus that WQA is an utter waste of time. I've never been there but I'm willing to bet that over half of the complaints are things like "he called my edit crap, block him he's a big meanie!!!!!!!!!!!" Access Denied – talk to me 09:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be mistaken as taunting (I'm sure it wasn't intended as such).[8] The user is upset and volatile, and picking him up like this sounds like "you can't resign because we fired your ass". Anyway, there's no reason why he can't decide, rather than meeting arbcom's requirements, he wants to retire from the project. I'm sure you didn't mean anything of the sort, but I hope you'll understand if I remove your comments and ask you to reconsider. If you decide to replace them, I'll not edit war with you.--Scott Mac 21:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Mark knows I've nothing personal against him, and would not taunt him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

What exactly does the "right to vanish" allow for, then? Thanks. Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've read WP:RTV - especially the phrase "user talks per convention are almost never deleted" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment on my talk page?

Hello. You posted this comment on my talk page [9]. I think you were referring to your comment here [10]. Maybe you could explain why you think that my "actions regarding that SPI filing were disruptive"? I was the accused party not the accusers who had no evidence for their accusations. From your comment here [11] I got the impression that you were addressing Cybermud and Shakehandsman who were saying what a wikihounder I am and planning which editors to accuse of sockpuppetry here [12]. Cybermud was suggesting user Nick Levinson and Shakehandsman was suggesting Slp1. I didn't participate in that discussion. If I misunderstood your comment

"As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary."

and it was actually addressed to me (although I really doesn't seem to apply to me) then I would like to apologize to you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The above comment, when it was made, was addressed to you and only you. You have since rudely and loudly advised others that it applied to them - it is to them you'll need to beg forgiveness. You never did strikethrough your comments as I advised. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment [13]: "As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary." was addressed to me?

I didn't file a an SPI report and I didn't even participate in that discussion between Cybermud and Shakehandsman. Even Shakehandsman says here [14] that you made "a small error" and that your comment was addressed to Cybermud. Cybermud is now using your comment on my talk page in a Wikiquette alert filed against him [15]. I didn't file an SPI report without having evidence. Cybermud did. There wasn't anything I could strike through in this section [16] on Cybermud's talk page because there was no comment of mine in that section. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi I think there is a misunderstanding here. Whilst User:Sonicyouth86 has indeed very much "rudely and loudly advised others that it applied to them" and should indeed seek forgiveness for the deliberate false statements, the original comment by Bwilkins regarding the SPI was actually directed at User:Cybermud rather than User:Sonicyouth86. This case can be quite confusing as we've got two parties who have both misbehaved in the past and I think Bwilkins has become uncertain as to who is who due to continuing poor conduct of Sonicyouth86.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, you have supported Cybermud's SPI case against me and Nick Levinson although you thought from the beginning that we were unrelated. Then you went on to speculate that I'm the "sock of an editor from the fathers' rights article" [17]. And then you singled out the administrator Slp1 of being the "most likely candidate" [18]. All this without having the tiniest piece of evidence. In your support of Cybermud's accusations you wrote something about me harassing and wikihounding Cybermud and this is why I told you to read Bwilkns' comment. Because he wrote: "We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it"[19]. You supported the SPI report although you knew that Nick Levinson and I had nothing to do with each other (which you say here [20]) and on top of that you involved an administrator, Slp1, in your speculations about me being a "sockpuppet."

Please don't lecture me on "misbehaving" in the future. And please refrain from calling me "obvious sockpuppet" and "wikihounder" or any other offensive names [21].

Bwiklins, I just want to let you know that Cybermud is using your comment on my talk page which I and even Shakehandsman think was directed at Cybermud (and not me) as a way to besmirch me in a Wikiquette alert. I hope that you will read your original comment here in the midst of a conversation between Cybermud and Shakehandsman [22] and see that it couldn't have possibly been directed at me. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your initial comment was, quite obviously, directed to me (it's on my talk page) and, given it's content/context, makes sense there. Besides responding to it there I've never referred to it again. SonicYouth has indeed referenced it since then in many contexts pretending it means many things about multiple editors. SonicYouth is establishing a long history of mischaracterizing edits and editors. While on the topic, I did strikethrough the only thing I feel was not quid pro quo or written in good faith, that is to say, the inclusion of User:Nick Levinson in the SPI, which I've also apologized for and explained several times now.--Cybermud (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)