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

You are pushing the line

Your comment at the Admin Noticeboard is worrying. You are pushing the line sunny jim, let me investigate the matter, and stop worrying over grammar. You have been warned. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Have a cuppa tea, read WP:NAM, and take a break from WP:ANI for a few moments. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Re User:AlldiRessie

See my post at User talk:PrimeHunter#About User:AlldiRessie. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was just filing an ANI report when you blocked. I just reverted on their talk page and wonder if revoking talk page access might be a good idea. Rivertorch (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I already revoked it before you posted this message :-) Thanks for the heads up! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

::Maybe you're telepathic, and I can just think my edits from now on. Rivertorch (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed the reference to User:Kauffner at User:AlldiRessie? May I now clean up my talk page or should it be kept as evidence for a possible SPI? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone already noted that reference at the existing ANI thread. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Expatkiwi

Please lets keep the WP:BURO to a minimum. I was the person who the personal attacks where directed at, and who was dealing with the copyright issues, I also took this to ANI. I am asking that this block be removed because I am trying to rehabilitate the user. Worst case I ask for the block to be re-applied. I would rather not loose an editor due to bureaucracy. The personal attacks where made in the heat of the moment and Im shrugging them off, and as for the copyright issue I am working with the user to avoid further issues. Werieth (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't BURO, it's policy. HE has to make a GAB-compliant request. His "discussion" doesn't even cover all the problems (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither one of the pages you linked to are policy. Wikipedia policy on blocking is done to prevent further issues. It is not a punishment, and its not a circus. I am working with the user and I think that a block is no longer needed as they are willing to change their behavior. If you think pointless hoops need to be jumped through I may just ask another admin or take this to ANI and seek an unblock there. Werieth (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not ask the editor to make a proper unblock request - THAT is what they'll tell you at ANI as well. Nobody gets to circumvent anything, and you're merely enabling him having others do his job. What a poor example you're showing on one hand when you're showing such a GOOD example on the other hand. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This user is just about ready to talk away and stop editing due to the brick wall they ran into. They have a feeling of unwelcomeness, hostility and frustration. I am attempting to defuse that so that wikipedia does not loose an editor over this. Policy does not require that the person who is blocked ask for the unblock. I have already gotten the user to realize what they did, the importance of copyright, and that if they dont understand something to ask before they (re-)act. If you think bureaucracy is more important that keeping editors then you need to review your positions. I work a lot with frustrated people in real life, dealing with them must be done carefully. Comments such as this clearly show the editor is at the end of their rope. I have been with them in order to resolve this amicably, not an easy task. Even WP:UNBLOCK isn't policy. WP:AGF on the other hand is, even though the user isnt "new" WP:BITE is almost applies here. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They only ran into a brick wall because they built the damned thing brick-by-brick. I'm certain that if they composed a GAB-compliant unblock request I would personally unblock them. However, I need to see them address copyright and civility in it - it's not humanly possible for you to put words in their mouth to show that they understand those two pillars of Wikipedia. If they're not willing to show that understanding in their own words, then we don't likely need to see them on Wikipedia until they can (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Jax

Can you take a look at this and this? I really get the idea that Jax is using Frietjes as a meatpuppet. The Banner talk 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you are on top of this Banner. Meatpuppetry or canvassing, it doesn't seem right. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops...

Thanks for the save. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why they keep me around LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan

Hi, I'm sending this to Bwilkins, Kww, and Spinningspark. I've just seen Nathan's explanation of why he reacted as he did. I was shocked when I saw his response to Spinningspark, but given his circumstances it's completely understandable that he'd be operating on a short fuse. Would one of you reconsider his unblock request? If editing in a coffee shop is the only time things feel normal, a week is a long time to lose that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

In light of the continued discussion on Nathan Johnson's talkpage, I have posted to ANI requesting review on the unblock request. Please feel free to comment on the thread, here. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahuljain2307

Do you really believe that forums on wikipedia like WP:DRN is place to decide religion of people? If someone is catholic, go to church, preach bible then he is christian. Why DRN is needed for that one sentence that 'he/she is christian'? The user is talking absolute nonsense and you want me to take this nonsense to DRN. Volunteers seldom comment in Rfc or DRN. Until DRN/Rfc decide or not decide, he will claim in the article that Chanakya was jain. If I try to leave the religion field blank until dispute resolution, he will revert my edits. If I engage in edit war, you will block me. And he will win. Article will claim that Chanakya was Jain. Now he has reverted my edit for not giving my refs in proper format. I will give it although it is not must as wikipedia policy. But he will come up with another argument. How long I should dance on his tunes?

And it will not end with Chanakya. I am damn sure he will force me to dance to his nonsense tunes on Mahāvīra.

another user gave me headache. Wikipedia is forcing me to listen written and unwritten dirty things like sh$t. neo (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Please see this where an admin action of yours is requesting your review. [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Since you had interaction related to one of the socks named here, I thought I'd bring your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

unblock him

unblock Nathan Johnson. i saw his activities, & one wrong activities doesn't mean ban, especial\ly, when that person is evoked & provoked & tempted to show his dis-agreement, his disagreement intensity is converted into harsh words, because of long period of iritation & frustation from made by a group of users & making situations under which he's sure to fall into trap of their rivals! i have the proof! see the history of jenova & flyer now after seeing those people 's history, again read my message, & now u'll see you can relate my words. i wasn't much into this, so i was just able to mark these 2 peoples, for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.17.203 (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

He was unblocked early yesterday, from what I remember - did you not notice that? However, it most certain was not "one wrong activity" - it's his 3rd for incivility. You can also read this fantastic essay (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hurry, we are fading away

CSDarrow is at it again with his latest assault on the project and its editors. Time to remove his talk page access yet? I'm not sure why someone who despises Wikipidia so much is so upset by not being able to participate in it. Anyway, have a great weekend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't earned a removal of talkpage access yet. Remember, blocks are not punishment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand that. I'm referring to his inappropriate use of the talk page... to repeatedly attack the project and the "quality" of all its editors, insult specific editors, and promote an anti-WP site with a direct link to it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OleOla is NOT the boss

Oleola is using multiple accounts Dudek1337 this guy is hitler and threatens us, only his point of view is good. HE makes fake accusations before deserves permanent ban for sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertspierre750 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Once you invoke Hitler, it's not even due a response (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome, I was not expecting such a personal approach to users/editors so thank you. Also I appreciate the clarification of the various rules and helpful hints to editing one of which I need to clarify is any possible conflict. After briefly reading that policy I believe there should not be any conflict on that one particular page. I have volunteered there a half dozen times since I am a subject matter expert unlike the two staff memebers (executive director/manager & the caretaker) of the non-for-profit foundation that now owns the Chateau. They did share accurate facts on size and status etc upon my request to educate others interested in the Chateau. I have used and loved Wikipedia for many years especially for its educational benefits and it is often the only source of information of many historic mansions and chateaux around the world long since forgotten until now. Its really exciting now to be able to contribute toward educating others on a few more architectural masterpieces. Thank you again for the help and the introduction. A.R.Deer (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Karatsuba "petition"

I quite understand that the "petition" at Talk:Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba is of no effect, but I don't see what is to be gained by removing the signatures that other users are putting there. People tend to react badly to having their comments removed, and there is no mandate at WP:TPO that says you have to do it. I suggest that on on balance it is less disruptive to let people sign away. If their signatures are in the wrong place it would be more courteous to move them than delete them. Spectral sequence (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The article talkpage guidelines also state that article talkpages for the sole existence of improving the article. "Petition"-type comments violate the WP:NOTAFORUM provision, and should be removed - this will help to prevent others from doing the same. Clearly, all have arrived there due to WP:MEAT - and the provisions of such also fully permit deletion of WP:MEAT-posted commentary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a variety of people who are interested in mathematics and clearly not experienced in the ways of Wikipedia recruited off-wiki and arriving to take an interest in one particular issue. If they get a reception that they perceive as rude (like deleting their comments as unwelcome) they are less likely to remain and turn into productive contributors than if they are treated politely and encouraged to learn how the encyclopedia works. But act as you see fit -- I do not propose to do anything further in the matter. Spectral sequence (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that I have reverted your latest edit. I was also removing the "Petition" of the IPs but changed my mind reading the above post of Spectral sequence. This IPs can be good wikipedians in future and it is best that we welcome (just welcomed many previous IPs) them than annoy them by removing their comments. Thanks Solomon7968 09:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that they could become positive contributors, User:Solomon7968, right now they're violating key policies - I'll recommend you read them and reverse yourself. If you wish to go around and welcome all the random IP, then do so - but do not re-add blank posts to the talkpage - I don't want to have to semi-protect the talkpage to prevent people who refuse to read from posting there - that would probably piss them off even more. Over to your immediate action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I will not re-add blank posts to the talkpage but it seems this IPs are wasting time of everyone. For example try to compare the article of Saint Petersburg State University with 8 references with Harvard University. All Russian wikipedia entries are in a very bad state. It is just annoying that this IPs instead of doing positive contributions are wasting time of everyone. Solomon7968 09:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

They ARE wasting people's time. Someone needs to a) find out where this WP:MEAT is coming from (I'll bet someone posted to some science/math forum somewhere asking for people to come to Wikipedia) and b) put a RUSSIAN notice on the article talkpage saying "THERE IS NO PETITION - PLEASE HELP BY IMPROVING THIS ARTICLE" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

I dispute your deletion of the article. This article obviously meets GNG, given the sources which discuss Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. It is a topic of legitimate academic inquiry as can also be seen from the references and is also widely discussed in the media, as can be seen from the sources given at the AFD. In your summary of valid reasons to delete you said "inflammatory title" This is not a justifiable reason for deletion at all per WP:POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" Every source in the article, as well as those given at the AFD use "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" therefore it is not a violation of policy to have an article with this name. Your other reason for deletion was "sources" bar one all sources in the article were from academic publishers, can you explain please how the sourcing was not up to scratch? My last issue with your decision is that you say the information in the article is covered elsewhere, it is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I summarized the arguments that were the ones that weighed heaviest in the decision, and quite well I must add. I spent a significant amount of time reviewing that entire AFD and found there to be no question as to the delete decision - not even a single waffle (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You have not responded to a single question I have put to you, why not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if you read my answer, you'll see that I responded to all of your issues. You simply don't like the answer, and there's nothing I can do about that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not. I have requested deletion review here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll remove your false statement: I never claimed at any point that an inflammatory title was reason for deletion. Lying won't help your process here, User:Darkness Shines (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is twice now you have accused me of lying, it makes one wonder if perhaps you ought not have closed the discussion. "The result was delete. A summary of the valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title" Retract your accusation please. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I give you better credit for reading English than that. If you cannot read, then you cannot hope to post here further. You're either lying, or you simply cannot read. As I said before I summarized the arguments ... that was one of the arguments that was made numerous times, wasn't it? Duh. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you or did you not write the following valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title As you obviously did in fact write that then how am I lying by saying you said that it was a valid reason for deletion? Again, retract your personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I summarized OTHER people's arguments - therefore YOU ARE LYING when you claim that I said it - don't you understand the difference? It's a simple thing in English. So, retract your lie, OR your misunderstanding of the language. Your behaviour is really deteriorating. Do not return to this talkpage unless you have retracted your lie, ok? Thanks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mr. BWilkins, could the deleted talk of a deleted article be temporarily (for 12/24hrs) restored / userfied? Is that technically allowed? There are some arguments and comments by some editors/admins which I need to collect, that's all, and then you can delete it perhaps? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

Hi. We would appreciate your feedback at Talk:Presidency of Jimmy Carter#Let's figure out our possible solutions. I think I've summarized all the core/pertinent points at the very end. Much thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RegentsPark

I'm far from happy with RPs response to the feedback to this unblocking and I am considering raising an RFCU/A. If I do, would you consider certifying the RFC? Further discussion on RP's talkpage if you wish to read the interaction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has moved on sufficiently to the point where I'm going to let it rest. I don't think RP is in any doubt that they could have handled this better and that understanding was mostly what I wanted to see. We all screw up but its concerning if you don't learn from it. Sorry to orange bar you unnecessarily. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem ... didn't get a chance to reply earlier - sorry. Hopefully RP (and all of us) has learned (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Isaacsirup's talk page.
Message added 09:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)