User talk:DangerousPanda

This user has opted out of talkbacks

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

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: 1 days

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. the panda ₯’

Deletion of SEXINT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SEXINT One of the requirements of deletion review is an attempt to work it out with the administrator. I would like to contest your points.

The result was delete. | I feel that the majority of the individuals !voting were voting to keep, based on the fact that greenwald, The Guardian, Huffington post, among other sources satisfied the general notability guideline. The consensus of that page was keep, but move.
Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. | Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) is what Ianmacm's argument was. Yet, right below him, the user commented that we know it wasn't notable, that's why people were claiming that it was notable, but to rename the article to better reflect this.
This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable | It was sourced to TheGuardian, Huffington post, among other reliable sources.
Another thing, WP:DPAFD states under in a section called 'deletion of articles' that The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate.. I did not see a consensus on that page. Tutelary (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even based on your argument, a "sourced" neologism is still a neologism the panda ₯’ 23:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to keep and rename the page, but individuals were not going to rename the page once there is an afd running on it. I did not see enough !votes to delete, but to keep and rename. Again, in the event of no consensus, then the page is kept automatically. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The POLICY-based arguments were clear. I'm well-aware of the "event of no-consensus" but no such lack of consensus existed when policy-based arguments were taken into account the panda ₯’ 23:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were. The number of !voters did have a consensus that the neologism was not notable, but that the content was. It was sourced to Arstechnica, TheGuardian, Huffington Post, so there was no general notability issues with the content. It was the neologism that was the source of the content dispute and afds. Nobody moved it because there was an afd on it. The content was notable, not the neologism. Deletion is not cleanup (albeit an essay) I think is relevant here. There should have been a move discussion, not a deletion discussion. Tutelary (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous - page improvements (including moves) are acceptable during AFD. The fact that nobody did it should be telling. the panda ₯’ 23:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be telling that they didn't want to potentially disrupt the afd. It's one of those obscure things on Wikipedia that you don't know about until someone tells you/you find out about it yourself.. Like page curation, speedy deletions, article sanctions, among other things. Nonetheless, I should ask you an important question; Do you feel that the content of the article, in itself, was notable? As well, do you think the neologism was notable? Tutelary (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've gone back to re-looked at the article contents since you first posted here. It's not an area I work in, so I poked at a few of my online press databases (it's what I do for a living, after all). If I had !voted, I would have said "strong delete" the panda ₯’ 23:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, could you address the points that I made earlier? It seems to have been lost in the discussion. Mainly about the GNG being met with the RS and that the majority of the individuals being for keeping, but renaming. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither my talkpage nor DRV are AFD part 2. I reviewed policy-based discussions and read consensus. I acted on it. You then asked my opinion, I gave it. This is a tree you should not be barking up any further the panda ₯’ 23:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to consider this the attempt to resolve it with the administrator, only to have nothing happen out of it. Tutelary (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, this discussion was done about 50 minutes ago. the panda ₯’ 00:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure

Regarding this AfD, I felt I should clarify that—even if not always stated explicitly—each voter was applying their vote to all four articles. Based on this, it seemed evident that there was consensus to redirect. While it may have been better to have separate AfD's, I thought it would be simpler to try and address multiple at the same time when first setting up the AfD. If not changing the result to redirect, could you perhaps relist the AfD for further input? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read all the comments carefully, I stick to the "no consensus" and recommend individual AFD's. The comments were quite clear that some COULD be kept while others deleted. As much as I hate bureaucracy, it's one of those situations where individual article nom's may actually draw more discussion from more editors the panda ₯’ 23:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So..... relist or DRV? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soo...individual AFD's and you're golden. I am speaking English, right? ;-) the panda ₯’ 23:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you are :P. Would it be a problem if I re-AfD'd right away in this instance? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-AFD any of the ones that you think should be AFD's today, and refer to my close if you wish. It's quite possible you'll skip at least one of them based on the AFD discussion the panda ₯’ 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for SEXINT

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SEXINT. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tutelary (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done the panda ₯’ 01:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello DP. Thank you for taking the time to revert the edits made by 100.2.24.137. I know that it may have been more work than you wanted to do so I really appreciate your efforts. Cheers and enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 03:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No issues! the panda ₯’ 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination)

Once you slip to insults, there's no further discussion the panda ₯’ 22:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

DangerousPanda, I'd be interested in hearing what you consider "strong arguments" for deletion in Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space. As far as I can tell, the only rationale that was relevant to deletion was that the sources were not independent. However, I found a number of reliable, independent sources during the course of the AfD. These sources also undermined arguments about OR, undue focus, coatrack and so on, none of which are grounds for deletion anyway. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed many good arguments when one reads it objectively. Indeed, after my second full reading of the AFD, the "delete and salt" argument was the one I was ready to go with the panda ₯’ 10:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really answered my question. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go line by line explaining what I saw. Suffice it to say, based on the policy-based arguments and discussion, I made a reading - anyone who's objective on reading the AFD would have reached the same conclusion the panda ₯’ 18:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need to go line by line - as an admin, you should be able to identify and summarize policy-based arguments that are relevant (there actually weren't many). Since you weren't able to do that, I'll summarize them for you:

Notability: NFRINGE was mentioned, but I established GNG by listing three reliable, independent sources, and no one challenged them.
Original research: SYNTH and UNDUE were invoked. Since the same three sources discuss astronaut sightings collectively, there is no basis for SYNTH. As for UNDUE, that's a fixable problem, and guidelines exist in FRINGE for keeping the correct balance. Therefore, no basis for deletion.
Neutral point of view was considered, particularly in the form of COATRACK; but per DISCUSSAFD, that is a weak argument for deletion.

All of the above was explicitly discussed in the article, and there weren't any other policy-based arguments. It is not enough to be objective - as an admin, you also need to be able to judge the true strength of arguments. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (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.

OpEdNews

Hi, is there a reason you didn't at least go for a relisting given the arguments made at the AfD you closed? Many completely false statements about the sourcing were made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the close was fine as it was, considering the quantity and quality of discussion the panda ₯’ 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So can I ask how you came to the keep conclusion given the poor arguments from the keep side? As multiple people noted, the sourcing was insubstantial and the idea that notability is conferred by contributors exists nowhere in our policies or guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that's your opinion, and I respect that. You're not seriously considering the ... 2 or so delete !votes to be be stronger arguments than the keep, are you? Seriously? the panda ₯’ 21:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious, but I also think it could have used a relisting given the circumstances. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting that simple one would have been a full-bore abdication of mine or any other admin's responsibilities. Hell, I would have almost accepted a WP:NAC on that one - not controversial at all the panda ₯’ 22:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude about this is really strange. I may bring it to DRV, we'll see. Thanks anyway. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My "attitude" is merely that no logically-thinking human being would have closed it any other way. It was blinking obvious. Your attitude - as someone whose edits I typically respect - is the bizarre thing here the panda ₯’ 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Total Drama characters (2nd nomination)

A DEV has dealt with it now the panda ₯’ 23:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Is there a reason you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Total Drama characters (2nd nomination) as delete but didn't delete the underlying article? —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its almost surely because the article has over 5000 edits. Big deletions have to be performed by Stewards. AniMate 17:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's posted on WP:AN to get assistance the panda ₯’ 18:18, 18 May 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall

Hello, can you please explain to me how consensus was delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall when none of the delete !votes were policy based? They all cite lack of national coverage. Where on wikipedia does it state something must have national coverage to be notable? Me5000 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something has to have substantial coverage in reliable sources. "National" was a mere suggestion in the AFD - not a requirement. "Substantial" was the requirement the panda ₯’ 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are the 10 sources that I brought up not substantial coverage? Me5000 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly did not meet the quality of sources we require. Remember, you're talking to someone who works in the press the panda ₯’ 22:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a link to what wikipedia considers a quality source? I don't understand how these sources aren't quality. Me5000 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hint: NOT the "Sumter Daily News". It might have done as a tertiary source, but you need major news sources. I mean seriously, that small of a mall is NOT going to be notable the panda ₯’ 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Sumter Daily Item different from any other local news source? Since when is a local news source not acceptable as a RS? Please define a "major news source". You already stated it doesn't need national coverage, so I have no idea what you are referring to when you say I need a "major" news source. Me5000 (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]