User talk:DangerousPanda

Bubble tea!

-download | 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)

Right. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Piscine clue adjustment

a fresh trouting

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I concur, you can put me down for a co-nom when the time comes if you wish. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

Subtlety at AN/I

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reminder (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So I guess this means you want me to file a grievance against you then?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I already have advised you, the ANI thread was opened based on a clear community decision - I have nothing personally against you. No further interactions between us should be required here. If you feel that you must create some form of grievance, RFC/U is the place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA

You weren't even tempted were you? Well, I tried anyway. In case no one else thought to mention it, I always thought you did a damn good job of keeping a cool head over there, and now I see you are using those same skills to try and keep the peace at ANI, which is even more difficult and will likely result in even more shit being shoveled in your direction. You must be a glutton for punishment! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh ... I took a quick glance, noticed that a good number were in good hands. I'll try and take another peek and see what I can do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

not too late

Thanks for letting me know about teenly; I added her to the article. what a sad story. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it ... it's one of the few situations I keep linked to from my userpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you for coming to my defense in that rather ugly but brief matter over at the ANI board. All that over a three-sentence subtub, for heaven's sake. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your help. It meant more than I can express. Gratefully, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed ugly, and thankfully brief :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I signed your ANI closure

It looked as if you forgot to sign. Please let me know if I misjudged the situation. [1] [2] Hans Adler 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware

But it is impractical to label someone as Glee Actress, and Heather Morris has done much more voicing, which distinguishes her. Her name could be simplified similar to the 2 will smiths. There are many musicians/actors/preformers who just have one of the labels whichever they are most known for. Feel free to change it back.--Tikopowii (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was already in the middle of doing that. This Heather Morris has been around a lot longer...I fully agree that "Glee actress" is an improper DAB. The other key point about leaving this one as "Heather Morris" alone is the issue surrounding the accidental use of this full name in the Silent Hill game foreign release (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your humour

[3] made me laugh, it's always nice to have some fun from Wikipedia amongst all the "serious business". Just thought I would share my amusement with you, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, glad you liked. Humourous and á-propos! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: If the offer still stands

I would be happy to nominate you! I've had limited computer access for the last week or so, but tomorrow or Monday I should be back to normal and have time to work on the nom statement. In the meantime, you could e-mail me your Q1-3 answers to give me a better idea what angle to approach the statement from. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of useful advice. I think you've done well since the last one. I'd be happy to co-nom, fwiw. Wonder if anyone who knows who I am still visits RFA. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA start

Hey Bwilkins, I started up the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2. This is only my second time, so I can't guarantee that I didn't mess anything up. anyway, feel free to take your time filling out the answers and waiting for co-noms if you like; transclude whenever you're ready, I've got in on my watchlist! Good luck, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Conom added. Not sure how familiar you are with WP:EW, but if you're thick-skinned enough, that's one place that always can use admins. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On this issue of recall (which I saw came up in a question), I would recommend this discussion. Worth reading, IMO. Guettarda (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...my response almost seems to bring up the entire sum of that discussion! However, do you think I should clarify my position further? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I thought your answer was good. Thought that discussion complemented what you had said pretty nicely. It's always nice to know that there are other people out there on the limb with you :) Guettarda (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think you are going to break the record for the most "thought he already was one" votes, I count seven already. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL ... well, if you're going to break a record, that's a good one! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Limerick requirement

May I assume Bwilkins is sufficiently competent in limerick composition (not only haikus) to competently fulfill the role of Wikipedia administrator? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There once was a guy named Proofreader

Who questioned a potential leader

Who said "they're old hat,

I can write them like that"

Then warmed up his poetry seeder.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, dear administrator-soon-to-be. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 09:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• (See also: Support #39) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 10:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thnx (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Essay,

Re, your message, oh, I am, trust me.. The same situation happened to me during the Frei Hans incident.. don't know if you were there or not, but he filed a sock case against Tan, that listed every single person who interacted with him as a sock. ... His reasons? They all have barnstars... You get my drift, heh. Also c.c I've looked it up, I've read the wiki article, but I still don't understand why they're called copy-edits.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're welcome. :D — Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA and my vote

I initially intended to land to the "neutral section" for the said reason (I don't appreciate people saying/joking about such things), but Decltype's concern including your temper persuades me. However you see the "weak" and "sorry" comment as well as compliments in my vote, all of which I don't usually say when opposing. Regardless, you will safely pass the campaign, so in hopes that my vote would be a little reminder when you communicate with people since your specialty is lied in ANI/WQA where "angry" reporters, and "angry" accused people thirst for "help" from civil adminis. You're a big man, so I thought you would not have a big deal about my vote. Anyway, good luck for your campaign.--Caspian blue 19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(replied on their talkpage - polite discussion ensued) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lynching

Bedford was an admin.

Then there was some controversy.

As a result of the controversy - during which he feels he was treated unfairly - he is no longer an admin.

He has chosen to portray this treatment as equivalent to a lynching. Simple. DS (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor Wiki Greek Basket Ball

Id like to offer an alternative view on this incident due to it being showcased as an example of your good work on the RFA and as for me it resulted in a good editor being excluded for no good reason. I hope this doesnt sound too critical as i dont think many would have handled the situation much better and there may be things Im missing. It was great that you took the time to intervene initially with good advice. What you didnt seem to understand is that for the more passionate person who isnt as detached or reflective as most it takes a while for them to change no matter how good and tactful any advise is. Even more so when theres language issues in the mix. WGB did seem to have taken much of the advice on board, and there wasnt really any need for him to be reported for making a couple of support votes, especially as he hadnt been formally banned from RfA. A lighter touch could have avoided the drama and retained a quality editor for the project. I doubt you will agree, but at least you might take this into consideration once you have the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry? He participated in the ANI discussion, and was 110% fully aware that the had been community banned from WP:RFA. When I politely advised him of this (at which point, if he had merely removed his !votes as accidental, there would not have been any problems) he attacked me and other editors. I remain considerate of this editor - indeed, his actions have been exasperating - it is not fun to watch a meltdown. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question at RfA

I asked you a question at your RfA. It's certainly optional, but I'd really like to know why someone who wants to be an administrator is making comments like this:

"Maybe he should have used the word "fuckface" - after all, as Russell Peters says, "it cannot be an insult: it's simply the face you make when you fuck"

on AN/I. AN/I is supposed to be one thing, a place where editors can get help from an administrator about a wikipedia incident that requires the assistance of an administrator. I'm tired of the drive-by idiotic posts there, and I'm tired of how it makes wikipedia look to the world. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already responded. I am actually quite surprised in how you responded - using it as an oppose, rather than simply ask me in the first place - I think the clarification earlier would have been far more beneficial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I got this. We're writing an encyclopedia here. There's a problem at AN/I. It's been escalating. Someone brings up that Guy called someone a fuckwit on their talk page. Guy defends it because that someone called him a vandal a couple of times. It eventually escalates into a discussion of Guy's calling someone a fuckwit, and a couple of editors express the concern that calling someone a fuckwit is never appropriate. You add a remark about your facial expressions while having intercourse. That's not what I thought the remark was, but that's your claim here. I thought it was just grossly inappropriate; you now seem to be proudly claiming it's far worse than that. So, just before your nomination for adminship you add a comment about your face during intercourse to an already heated situation that was cooling down. You want to be an administrator. We're writing an encyclopedia. How did your remark about your personal life have anything to do with what was going on at AN/I. I ask a question about what I think is an inappropriate comment by you, and you turn it into something far more inappropriate, claiming that you were discussing yourself during the act of intercourse. Was that SMART?

Why would you think it would be appropriate for the encyclopedia-writing community at wikipedia for you to bring up anything about you during intercourse, at AN/I, or at your RfA? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)