User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 14

Things you probably never read on my talk page in the first place

John221989

Now that John221989's SPI has concluded, it appears that John is Malbin210 whom you blocked in March. I want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your help throughout this case. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Please take another look at my WP:ANEW. The editor in question edited as of today. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? Is today the 15th?? the panda ₯’ 23:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, today is the 25th, which is clearly when the editor last edited, without logging in (the IP address). I see you have blocked their IP, that seems fine, if they log in as Central Casting and continue edit warring I can start another WP:ANEW case then. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't report the IP address...you reported an editor, one who had not edited in a week. If you intend to also report the IP, you needed to do so in the same report. So, yes, I blocked the IP based on the additional information you provided here. I looked at the contribs of the user you reported the panda ₯’ 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, both were listed in the case. I only listed the named user in the heading, but both were in the actual report. Please make sure to read the entire report before coming to a decision in the future. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but you didn't list them in the header, so don't drop by and act all smug. Matter of fact, don't drop by at all - your desired effect was obtained, so say "thank you" rather than being insulting...is that too difficult? the panda ₯’ 09:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello DP. It seems that you hardblocked the IP. So if Central Casting is the same as the IP you have prevented both from editing for a year. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that was intentional the panda ₯’ 09:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/189.189.56.162

Sorry for interrupt. Can you block him/her for one year? (not 24 hours, not one week, seriously) He/she is currently a genre warrior. 183.171.177.48 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP. There's only 2 days of edit-history, which means it'll be reassigned and they show up again on another IP the panda ₯’ 13:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Pati Yang page

Dear Panda,

Many thanks for your email.

The page is question is about my own work and biography. I updated it on my behalf so I am the only reliable source of the content. It was updated by my previous management but now I have updated it again by myself. Please would you kindly accept my update. I would also like to update the photo to a more current one. Please can you advise how to do this?

Many thanks and Best Wishes.

Pati Yang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadevi11 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mahadevi11, if you are Pati Yang then you should not be editing the article directly at all - you may make proposed changes on the article talkpage, but they must be supported by third party reliable sources. Which actually addresses the main part of your argument: if it's something that only YOU know and has not been reported by reliable press sources, it may not be included in the article - we only report things that have been reported elsewhere, not personal knowledge. In terms of images, if you're willing to grant Wikipedia the correct copyright, see WP:IUP the panda ₯’ 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Need Some Advice

Trying to keep this as vague as possible.

I have a pretty good idea who an editor disrupting an article is, mainly because they self-identified on Commons and its a unified login. Its just been drawn to my attention that they're using their Twitter account to rally followers to edit the article in their favour. What would you advise in a situation like that? WCM_email 15:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it currently under AFD? It's pretty pathetic to do off-wiki canvassing. the panda ₯’ 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, its live and a BLP, a case of someone manipulating their wiki entry. I'm trying hard to be as vague as possible to avoid WP:OUT. WCM_email 16:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry did you miss this or were unable to suggest what to do? WCM_email 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As much as I hate to suggest this, can you e-mail me some details ... vagaries aren't helping me determine the best way forward. the panda ₯’ 19:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably best. Give me 5 minutes. WCM_email 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Bmwz3hm

I've just returned to the computer and was wondering why nobody had yet blocked Bmwz3hm. While researching I noticed that some of your posts on Bmwz3hm's talk page were redacted by Bilby. I can understand why he did it but it's rather frustrating. We all know who Bmwz3hm is and the sneaky actions undertaken by her are reprehensible. I'm amazed and disappointed at the actions of one admin who seems to be giving her chances that we wouldn't give anyone else and, in the process of doing so, is effectively blocking Wikipedia while letting a vandal run rampant. It's instances like this that make me wonder whether I should bother continue editing Wikipedia. I can understand why so many others have left. Anyway, thanks for weighing in. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to thank you for this

Bwahahaha, "Whackload" - that's going to be my favourite new word of this whole decade, I can already tell you. I just can't wait to use it. I wish there were a barnstar commiserate with this gift you've given me. Anyway, on a more sober note, maybe I should have held back on attempting to help Wondering. He seems to have converted the tangential support directly into fuel for continued obstinacy. I feel frustrated for him as much as with him; he keeps almost but not quite getting it. But I think I did more harm than good to his chances of reversing the block by giving him comments to anchor his defense on (in his mind anyway) when his best chance, paradoxically, is of abandoning defense and taking his (fairly well deserved) lumps. Snow (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Whackload" was one of the first words I learned when I migrated - didn't realize the sexual overtones until much later, and it's a good word to use.

Onto the less-pleasant side of things...we all know characters in books, movies, or sometimes in real life that display these general types of behaviours. In book and film they're often portrayed as British-accented, or at times colonial-Eastern-US-blueblood-accented know-it-alls that we or the book portray as "arrogant, annoying, never-wrong-even-when-they-are-wrong" - and if you know them in person, as most of do know at least one, we either want to tell them to "shut up", or punch them in the face. They're the kind of person who hangs around at the party long after everyone else has left, droning on about "archeological findings in 1139 which determined that..." and spends 45 minutes in linking it to the price of 24 packs of Oolong tea in your corner mini-market (but no, not the 48 packs you find at the Grocery store, of course)...when all the while, you just want to boot them to the curb and go upstairs to bed because you've had one-too-many glasses of cheap scotch which isn't mixing well with the expensive wine, and you either need to sleep, pee, or throw up. You cannot do any of them, however, because the fool in the foyer has just entered into a 38-minute soliloquy on how Fordism was originally created by the Mayans - however, was strangely not used to build their fancy multi-tiered temples, which of course means that Ford must have been of Mexican descent, therefore making the Model T the first ever foreign car as opposed to domestic which we have believed for decades. This leads him to "an interesting anecdote" about recent research into the design of overseas shipping containers that could enable more environmentally-friendly means of trans-Atlantic commerce, which of course leads into the whole "Global warming pros and cons" discussion ... which is by now about 3.5 hours after the point where you had started to wonder why the hell you ever invited this guy to the party in the first place. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Welcome! Thanks :D

Hi!

Thanks for the welcome. And yes, I do have an interest of the use of photos/images in Wikipedia. I think it helps people understand more about a specific article here on Wikipedia. Thank you so much. :) J-Ronn (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello. Do I need to delete the page I created about the song Time to Save Our Love (Brian McFadden song)? Please help me to improve it. Deletion of the page is not the solution for our problem. Thanks DridsOBrien (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:DridsOBrien, The deletion of an article about a song that fails our very strict notability guidelines is the solution - there's no problem here, just possibly a misunderstanding on what constitutes "notable" for an encyclopedia. No biggie - I've had many of my own articles deleted the panda ₯’ 23:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hello. Please? Don't delete the pages I created. I spent half of my day editing and creating some Wikipedia page. I'm so tired so please? I'm begging you TO CONSIDER MY WORK. If you can't take the error of the pages, just improve it. I will let you do that. Thank you DridsOBrien (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello? Are you still there? Please help me improve the pages I created. All of the time and effort I spent will be nothing if you continue to propose the deletion of these pages. Please... DridsOBrien (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

a) Please don't communicate solely using "Wikilove" templates. b) I answered your first question above - please read the answer before proceeding further - heck, I gave you lots of information on your usertalkpage too. the panda ₯’ 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I didn't remove it on purpose. I am constantly moving needed info on my ancestry research and can move text from one box to another without using the Shift/copy key, so on Wikipedia sometimes I forget. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Dave Dial (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Reason

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.

---

Am I aloud to change the reason? Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No. the panda ₯’ 20:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

...and if you cannot tell when to use "allowed" instead of "aloud", I wonder how things are at your school the panda ₯’ 20:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Was that crack really necessary, DP? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

:-) If you've seen the reason behind his request for permission, you'll understand the concern the panda ₯’ 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk about having a BIG sense of humor. You don't get it? I’m snorting right now, and as I was saying the joke was on you. Am I allowed to change my reason aloud? Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha funny. So, you cannot modify anything that has already been responded to. By the way, you warned someone that they should not have had their name on their userpage, but since they have no other identifying info, it's not a problem the panda ₯’ 21:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I replied to your comment on the user's page, and anyways that's settled because I've negotiated to another admin and another account creator. Also I removed the image from my signature. As you can see. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And I forgot to reply to your previous thought, yes, school is very well, and thank you for asking. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to jump in, but you really need to slow down. Getting advanced permissions is not a trophy - it's a dangerous responsibility. Telling someone the wrong thing can drive them off. Get used to the actual policies. You should not request any advanced permissions for a couple of more months, so stop "negotiating" for them the panda ₯’ 22:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Dude! I was trying to say that it's settled and I won't ask for a period of time. I appreciate that you try to tell me that I shouldn't dive in and thanks but I think I'm experienced enough to handle this without arguing with an admin or sysop. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping

I posted something about your block of Flyer on ES&L; not realizing it was your alt account until just now. Just pinging you here to make sure it gets to you. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not typically on this account during EDT business hours, except in what I consider to be emergencies. Saw your message on ES&L, am replying there the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello

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.

---

You know how you said that I have to remove the image from my signature from everywhere I signed with it? Well, should I remove the signatures on your talk page? Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 21:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you've removed it. Don't worry going everywhere. Thanks for reading and following the policy - didn't want to have to issue blocks this evening :-) Cheers the panda ₯’ 21:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks the panda ₯’! I always respect admins or sysops. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

re Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda

Dangerous Panda, I've initiated a petition for a reconfirmation RfA (or "recall RfA") here: User talk:Herostratus#Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda. Normal recall procedure is for the petition to be placed here on your talk page, but you deleted my last message to you without comment, and I don't want to take the chance of you doing that to the petition; I'm sure you understand.

This is unusual circumstance, since you're not a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and appear not be cooperating. You may be wondering how a recall petition can be initiated on an non-cooperating subject, and the answer is that it might not be possible. But it might be, and I have some ideas on that. Only way to find out is to run through the process and find out. We'll see. Shorter answer: it's a wiki, and so we can do whatever the community allows, or try to.

Nothing personal here, it's just business. Don't know you well and haven't interacted with you much, it's more that I'm seeing some disgruntlement from others and so I think a good consideration of your status is in order, and RfA is set up for just that. As far as I know the petition may fail to garner the required support, and if does you may pass the resultant RfA handily, and that'd be fine.

If I may extend the hand of collegiality, I recognize that this could be a difficult process for you. There's no deprecation intended of your contributions, which I'm not very familiar with but which I'm confident are extensive. It's just that we're trying to run an effective organization here, and some of us are suited for various important roles and some of us are suited for other and different important roles, and we can't achieve excellence if we don't acknowledge this. Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed your first post because it was in no way helpful, or appropriate - it was best to remove it and for you to pretend you hadn't made such an odd mistake. Opening a recall petition on your own violates wP:POLEMIC and is in no way helpful to me, or to the project - quite the opposite actually. the panda ₯’ 08:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dogmaticeclectic's block

Hi DP. Would you mind giving me your opinion on Dogmaticeclectic's latest unblock appeal? Myself, I'm inclined to loose him once more upon the world, but I'd like to hear what you have to say before doing so. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest: I almost declined it myself because "see above" when it didn't work last time is not a valid unblock request. What WP:GAB aspect was missing that caused the last decline? Time isn't a valid reason to decline, in most situations - that last decline was the oddity the panda ₯’ 08:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, quite. I agree that Chris's decline was a bit unusual (his perogative, though) - my take is that had I encountered the previous unblock request a couple of weeks ago, I would have done the same as I am now, and so I don't feel that any further reasoning is necessary. I don't personally see anything wrong with the request itself - he's addressed the issues that caused the block, and assuming he abides by the behavioural strictures that have been outlined in the request, I see no way for the behaviour to reoccur. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Thumperward: in case he wants to expound on the previous decline. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've always disliked that the duration of indef blocks is either "ten minutes" or "forever". As I said in the decline, if the block had followed the escalation process it would have been for two weeks; instead, as an indef, it was appealed pretty much immediately, which sort of makes a mockery of the previous blocks. If someone wants to unblock now then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thought you could use some support. I don't think anybody deserves to be put under a microscope. It's torturous. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. Coffee = good the panda ₯’ 08:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

Hi, DP. There is an unblock request at User talk:Davebrayfb. The block dates from 28 October 2012, and after that much time I am inclined to give the editor another chance. However, you placed the block, after previously having lifted an earlier block, so I thought it best to consult you. Any thoughts? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson, I would be ok with the unblock provided that the original conditions of unblock are re-activated. The re-block was due to violation of those conditions, so a re-unblock would have to re-enact them (that's a lot of re's!) the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I was sort of assuming it went without saying that the original conditions would still apply. However, thinking about it now, we cannot take it for granted that the original mentor will be willing to re-adopt the editor, and since the mentoring was an essential part of the conditions, that must be dealt with. I will check with the mentor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Errm, I answered that message assuming it was from DangerousPanda, but then saw it was from EatsShootsAndLeaves. A little checking reveals a close relationship, but it had never crossed my mind to connect these two panda-related accounts together before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL ... I would have thought that when I renamed my original account, then basically replicated the signatures, it would have been easier to tell! I was trying to be as transparent as posssible! ES&L is my non-secure network alt-account the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, seeing the two signatures together, it's pretty obvious, but seeing one, then several days later seeing the other one in a totally different connection, there is no reason to think "wait a minute, that looks rather like a signature I saw the other day, now whose signature was it? Oh, yes, DangerousPanda's ..." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI - about the recent block

I believe that User:Brian Josephson has previously confirmed that he is Brian Josephson so there is potential that the media might actually take an interest in this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And he's said he is contacting the media. I mentioned this in the ANI thread and at Jimbo's page so that he can alert anyone who needs alerting. That wasn't a comment on your block, just an attempt at damage control. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've personally never heard of the man - and it's not a subject matter I work in either at Wikipedia or elsewhere. The legal threat was unequivocal, and his path to unblock is pretty darned simple. That said, my chief editor is already preparing a CP piece - thankfully, he understands Wikipedia (I think he even has an account) the panda ₯’ 12:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you watching Josephson's talk page? Is that enough for you to unblock? Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Saw the usual drama whoring at ANI, got to say this was a perfect example of the appropriate use of a NLT block. WCM_email 16:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I should say "thanks" for the support - and I am pleased he's unblocked now the panda ₯’ 00:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Piematrix deletion

Hello DangerousPanda,

I noticed you deleted the Piematrix page. That page had two solid citations from notable news sources and one citation from an international research firm. I would like to know why that page was deleted and if the citations were overlooked or not meeting your requirements.

Thanks,

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdandurand (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The article failed WP:CORP badly, and merely promoted an entity. It even sounded like someone with conflict of interest was involved in the writing, which made it even worse. the panda ₯’ 00:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article looked as though it was written by a PR person for the company, not as though it was a neutral, third party, encyclopaedia article. Also, my own searches suggest that the company comes nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

NACs at AfD

Hello. I happened to notice that Dogmaticeclectic has made a large number of NACs of AfDs today, and have a question related to that. WP:NAC says that "experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page" (my emphasis), i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, but IMHO Dogmaticeclectic is neither experienced nor in "good standing", considering that he has a long block log that goes almost all the way back to when he created his account, and just barely managed to get back in after his second indef block for abusing and harassing other users. So are his NACs really appropriate? Thomas.W ^talk 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W, I closed exactly one discussion in which the opinions of everyone but the nominator were unanimous. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Allright, one AfD covering 11 separate articles. I saw them as separate AfDs. But even one AfD is one too many for someone who is not in "good standing". You also received complaints about your NAC close. Thomas.W ^talk 19:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The complaints were from the nominator - you're ignoring the "unanimous" part. Nor is an editor being in "good standing" defined anywhere I know of. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you open an AN report. List 12 diff's yet only 2 about me - wholly inappropriate, trying to lump me in directly with the perceived behaviour of another editor to see if the shit will stick on 2 people. I don't believe you've even read WP:WIAPA as I have not personally attacked you whatsoever. Moreover, you have filed there without even addressing me directly about it - bad form, and worse karma. As such, I see nothing needing my input the panda ₯’ 19:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold (Part 2)

At User talk:OptimalWebmaster I am definitely on the side of the blocked editor. We have a good-faith editor, whose only wish is to make constructive contributions. I do see the point of your objections, but really unblocking would be better for the project than keeping the editor blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

James, although I'm not the blocking admin (just one who looked at the unblck request), I have no issue with him being unblocked to do a username change - the username right now appears related to an org, as per WP:U. And, as long as he's not linking to anything he's involved in, I don't think there's any question about his eligibility for unblock the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops - I thought you were the blocking admin, but now I see you aren't. Thanks anyway for your comment. On a totally different matter, I have expressed disagreement with you at User talk:Wondering55, but it is only on one small point that I disagree: I am 99% in agreement with you. Alas, I really see no hope, though I will be delighted if I am proved wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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/List of Total Drama characters (2nd nomination)

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)

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)

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

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.

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)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Release of hostage Christina Meier

I disagree on your decision in deleting this article. You can't make a concensous of just 6 votes ! It was 4 for keeping and 6 for deleting ... Not an acceptable amount to make a decision on. I do not accept the deletion on these poor grounds. The article was true and based on a real event. It is notable in the history of the Norwegian armed forces. There are plenty of similar articles about similar events / people. As for including it in the article of the amred forces of Norway is a hopeless proposition, as the article would be way to long if I were to include just the basic amount of missions.. You also deleted the article without telling me. Mortyman (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're not counting !votes...that's not how Wikipedia works. Some AFD's only have 3 commenters, and it's just as easy to read the POLICY-based discussion points and determine WP:CONSENSUS. You seem to be suggesting that AFD needed more? Or are you suggesting that those non-policy-focused "keep" !votes somehow outweighed the others? Again, that's not how Wikipedia - or the AFD process - works. the panda ₯’ 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sumter Mall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sumter Mall. 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. Me5000 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not an issue - just don't treat it as AFD pt2. Good luck the panda ₯’ 17:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall

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.

---

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

DVDASA

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVDASA

What happened here why did you delete? It was redirect, please restore history and talk page I'll redirect it. Also how did I have a non-policy complaint? I cited several sources, some have disagree with the sources, does not mean it was non-policy though. Thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I performed a "delete before redirect" (which appears to have gone "wrong") - which means it's easy enough just to create the redirect, which I have done. This is one that we don't need to keep the history around for, lest someone try and reverse. I appreciate your WP:AGF on the technical glitch the panda ₯’ 18:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you also restore the history for both the talk page and article, that was my main reason. This might be WP:TOOSOON, but that what redirects are for so we can work on the history if more coverage becomes available in the future. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I deleted the history on purpose. A couple of months from now if things improve, let me know the panda ₯’ 18:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My expectation was that the closure would take strength of argument into account is all. Regardless, I have brought this to DRV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How non-AGF to suggest that I did not take strength of argument into account. Bizarrely non-AGF, really. Unexpectedly, bizarrely, non-AGF. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I can only go off of what I see. The evidence suggests that you ignored the very real point that a local news piece and a single paragraph aren't substantial, non-trivial coverage. The evidence also suggests that you accepted the argument that the type of contributors to a project contributes to notability even though nothing in our guidelines or policies indicates as such. If I'm wrong, you are free to explain, but you've also claimed it was a "blinking obvious" close, so I'm not sure what else you want me to think. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Here's the DRV link Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:BlackHomeTheMovie

Good morning,

Although I am not directly affiliated with this user, I have been helping this user writing an article. Initially, I declined xe's article submission. Then, User:BlackHomeTheMovie fixed xe's article submission and asked me to take a look at the article again. I responded to his request found [1]. When I looked at his user page, as his user page was red-linked when I used the command to ping xe, I noticed xe's block. I am contacting you, as you are listed as the blocking administrator for User:BlackHomeTheMovie. I am requesting the following information, so that I am better able to either continue, hold, or end my work with this article:

1. How long is the block for?
2. What exactly was the situation/exact reason/action which led to the block?
3. In your opinion, what do you think I should do with the article?

Thank you. Note: If you don't mind, please use either the talkback template on my talk page or ping so that I don't forget to check your message.

Additionally, I have read your comment on his userpage. Let me know if you need me to do anything. --JustBerry (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks !

The link to the essay WP:TTR made my day. I'm not sure I agree with it and getting my second template in six years from Demi kind of annoyed me, but I really appreciated your link and the essay. Thanks again! Capitalismojo (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You two were getting a little heated for no real good reason. We all need a template in the ass every some often, just to remind us we're mere mortals after all :-) Glad the humour wasn't lost the panda ₯’ 23:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Editings

Main article: Copy editing

I see that some of editors like User:舎利弗 are trying to delete my articles , but i have many sources and reviews and readings on to any sources before i made an articles and cited it to my edits... so It was tried to deleted last year .. it was cleared that it was a i have some footnotes on to it on my articles also.. they saying that it was a non-reliable, but it it was also based on the references of the particular articles (which i derived it).. if you have an Solution,, please put it on my talk page.... Thank you! P.Andrew (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

All the nominations were on grounds of notability and verifiability. Provide independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage and the nominations will be happily withdrawn. 舎利弗 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I advice the dear administrator, should he wish to leave a comment, to direct it to User talk:Sky Harbor#Editings, where we have proceeded with the discussion so far, so that he may be informed of the progress so far as to this case. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Can you give us the brief statement about the results of the RFC? --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, that fell off my watchlist! the panda ₯’ 08:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Pakaran has one edit since April, and he's talked about some problems he's having, so I've offered to step in (if I can be helpful) over on his talk page. DP and JC ... any thoughts, any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Dank, the only "criteria" I was "tested" on was: "have you commented at the RFC? do you have strong feelings about PC?" the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I dropped a suggestion on the talk page there, and welcome your thoughts. And of course, your thoughts are welcome on the various closure page threads as well : ) - jc37 01:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question

I see you have been on Wikipedia for some time, and I have one quick question.

How do you put a line through text that you type?

Try <s> before the text, and </s> after it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux edit warring

Hello DP. I wonder whether you could keep an eye on this article. The editor whom you recently blocked has resumed edit-warring by repeatedly reverting to restore his preferred versions of text. The article is at a standstill, despite talk page consensus against the views of that editor. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

edit warring

Dear User:DangerousPanda User:Bbb23 User:EdJohnston

This user freemesm must be blocked for ever. This is not his first edit warring, but second.

[2] [3] [4]

There was written also something here[5], but I can not find it.

He always give warning to ther users for no reason. Thank you! 109.154.0.185 (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you're moving into WP:RFC/U territory - we typically don't ban someone for edit-warring twice the panda ₯’ 16:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Return of Douglas Cotton?

I could file an SPI, but it might be quicker for you to take a look at the edit by User:Googolplexbyte on User talk:Venus, which is very reminiscent of Douglas Cotton's tendentious commentary. (DC is indef blocked.) The odd contrib history of Googleplexbytes - 2 edits in April 2013, and then the current comments on Venus' albedo - adds to my suspicion that this is DC evading his block with a sleeper sock, perhaps an account he borrowed from someone.

I brought this to Georgewilliamherbert, the admin who blocked Cotton, but I see today that he hasn't edited since May 9, so I'm bringing it to your attention, since you declined his unblock request. Please let me know if you're going to look into it, or if I should file a SPI. Thanks, BMK (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Inergen / Argonite

As you are the person who intervened in my Inergen request on ANI I would like some feedback on a idea. Both the Inergen and Argonite pages are blatant adverts for competing products. As such they have been annoying me for years and I am considering a 'bold' edit to replace both of them with links to a simple factual article - the prototype is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mtpaley/sandbox. This will probably cause a edit war from the sponsors of these products but maybe that is a good thing. Just for clarity I have nothing to do with fire extinguishers apart from being a irritated editor. Any comments? Mtpaley (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No need for a new page, Gaseous fire suppression does it.

QualityUnit restoration

Hi, I requested QualityUnit's page to be restored to my namespace but after that you deleted it when it was on my namespace already. Can you restore it again so I can work on it? Thanks a lot. La cate35 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No ... not if you're going to create stuff like Smarketing. This is a serious project. the panda ₯’ 23:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Then why do you used a criteria that does not apply for a neologism? Can I remind you that WP:A7,and I quote, " This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." La cate35 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Smarketing" is not an "other creative work" the panda ₯’ 21:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FZ700 deletion closure

Hey there! I see that you closed the FZ700 article as "Delete". I'm wondering why -- there were three or four independent sources about the model in the article (and I was about to add another). Even with the decision that the model is not notable, why wouldn't the result be "merge" back to the related FZ750 article, or to an over-arching Yamaha motorcycle article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I left a rather detailed reason on the AFD closure. It took awhile to review the panda ₯’ 23:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Tacoma Streetcar

I wonder if you might rethink your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacoma Streetcar? I think there was a rough consensus that the topic was notable, albeit with uncertainty about the proper name of the article because of the paucity of references. I had added a source to the article a few days ago and intended to add more, but I wanted to see whether the closing administrator left a recommendation about the title. I also highlighted several potential sources during the discussion which addressed Dennis Bratland's point about the name. A potential way forward for this article is an undeletion and a move discussion, or perhaps a merge into Tacoma Link. Another possibility is Streetcars in Tacoma, Washington, but this would overlap enough that it would probably be considered a revival of the deleted article. I appreciate your time. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no possible other way to close an article with zero sources. I was quite clear in the AFD closure about the potential way forward for that "article" the panda ₯’ 23:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I've raised the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Tacoma_Streetcar. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would have expected you to actually READ the closing statement, and act on one of the options provided, rather than go to DRV. Meh ... do things the hard way the panda ₯’ 00:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Partitioning minimization procedure - deletion

Hi, Sorry, I completely understand why my page was taken down and does not fit into an encyclopedia! Not trying to be a pain, but since i have already used the request for undeletion thread, how can i now request to still get the contents of the page that i originally posted? I'm sure its up somewhere on how to do this but could you just tell me? I wasnt sure if i just edit the post i already made, or do i need to start a new one?

Thanks a ton! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantrum22 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have undeleted the contents and placed them here. It also wasn't appropriate for an encyclopedia as it's very much a how to guide the panda ₯’ 09:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantrum22 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Who'll Stop the Rain?

The close of this AFD was unsatisfactory - please reconsider. Andrew (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided an extensive policy-based closure statement. I spent a lot of time reading and re-reading the arguments, providing extra weight to those that correctly related to policy. Yet all you say is that the close was "unsatisfactory". Why? To whom (besides you)? Based on what policies? You don't even provide a reason to revisit it - but nontheless, I just did, and without anything new and/or useful, I'm actually more convinced of the close than I was when it occurred. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming users

Have you edited your own TW's script? Never seen a welcome like this[6] before. OccultZone (Talk) 09:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be on your Twinkle ... very bottom option for Welcome's under "potential problem users" (or whatever the section is called) the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:MIS1973

Hi, regarding your recent declined unblock request at User talk:MIS1973, who was blocked by Daniel Case:

I have been conversing with this user in OTRS, which sorta makes me WP:INVOLVED so I will refrain from unblocking her. Otherwise I would do so if her next unblock request (as I suggested to her) included a description of her understanding of the policies and guidelines she violated, as well as a promise to work only in WP:AFC space to submit her article for review, and that if the article is accepted, she will refrain from making further substantive changes to it. AFC is realistically the only valid venue where someone with a conflict of interest should be submitting articles.

The organization she tried to write about is notable, and it's unlikely that someone outside the organization will bother to write it. I have no objection to having an article on it, provided it complies with our policies and guidelines and is submitted the proper way. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with you laying out some restrictions on their talkpage, stating "as per our discussion in OTRS, you agree to..." blah blah blah, and then unblocking when they accept. the panda ₯’ 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I need to know

Dear DP, let's be clear. I need to know if Director can speak to me as he usually does. If he can it means this project is not for me. Because what he tells me hurts me too much. So if he can do that it is my problem and I need to leave this project. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

So open an RFC/U. Edit other articles until it's resolved. It's as simple as that the panda ₯’ 00:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your advice. I have entered the RfC/U [[7]] but I do not know if I did it right and if the page is visible to administrators. I do not want to make the second time the mistake to post incorrectly. Can you please tell me if I did it right? Thank you for your help and my apologies for the nuisance. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see it. Now you need to find 2 certifiers for it to become active the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, 3 users have so far certified the form so far, but I don't know if this is what is required. The standard set in this procedure looks very high. Can you please confirm if it is fine now (I requested many other experienced users but you look the only one knowledgeable enough to answer to my procedural queries)? Thank you in advance for your explanations. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be flowing ok, and you're getting commentary the panda ₯’ 11:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada

Can you lower the protection level of Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada to semi, or at least template-protection? It only has 17 transclusions. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

PC2 RfC

Jc and I have both published closing statements at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014/Closure‎. Is there anything you'd like to add, or have us change? - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the direction it's taken whatsoever. This "if RFC in the future, there was consensus for..." is hogwash, and abdication of reading the entire discussion the panda ₯’ 21:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all ears. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you mean all eyes? :P—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I tried responding to your email, but it bounced, saying "Remote host said: 550 Mailbox quota exceeded [RCPT_TO]". --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Probably because some moron e-mailed me a couple of dozen pictures yesterday in order to prove that his block was actually a requirement. I deleted it from the server (I think), not sure how long it takes to catch up the panda ₯’ 11:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Its not related to the above stuff, but I've just sent you an email. I figured this would be as good of a place as any. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Thanks. I wasn't really sure there, but I took a stab at it. I don't usually go out on limbs like that with speedies. United States Man (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

While it's true he has no real clue, the first step is to discuss - like I started to do - and not to delete heavy-handedly :-) the panda ₯’ 09:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Federal Court Order Approving AAFM Lawsuit to go Against Brett King and Geoff Baring in US Federal Court

On July 17th, 2013, a US Federal Judge ordered that all of the of seven lawsuit counterclaims by AAFM and Mentz could go forward to court against the former trainers: Brett King, Geoff Baring and the IABFM. The US Court order stated that AAFM and Mr. George Mentz could sue Mr. Brett King, Mr. Geoffrey Baring and IABFM individually for numerous lawsuit counts in federal court including: (1) theft (2) defamation, (3) breach of contract, (4) intentional interference with contractual relationships,(5) conspiracy, (6) copyright infringement, and (7) fraud violations of the Consumer Protection Act. After this key decision, the case was settled.

A hint as to what this is related to, why I'm involved, and what steps are required from me specifically would be nice the panda ₯’ 09:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DeadSend4...

... has been loosed upon the world again. I read your message there as suggesting you'd be okay with that, but thought I'd better let you know. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say you read my statement properly :-) That said, looking at it now, it's somewhat convoluted - maybe intentionally. the panda ₯’ 10:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, far be it from us to avoid not stating the opposite of a clear explanation of what we don't intend to not leave undone... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be undoubtedly an inssue to do that which, in doing, would less-than-doubtfully end up being done the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Useitorloseit

I was replying to Useitorloseit's "It doesn't make sense" section and edit-conflicted with his newer section and you locking his page (good call!). I still posted my response, plus added a further note. If you think my comment could lead to Bad Things, feel free to delete it. I think they need some nudging in a different direction and some ideas on what next, so left something. Hoping for the best ... Ravensfire (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Very extensive comments that hit the nail on the head. They'll need to realize that in order to get a topic ban rescinded they will need to:

1. wait a significant period of time (usually 6 months)
2. show extensive positive edits elsewhere on the project
3. show that they can keep their cool, and not break any of the rules that led to the topic ban

You've put them in the right direction - and I hope they listen the panda ₯’ 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

World's largest municipalities by population and the block

I just saw the BsBsBs block. I'm just wondering if this post was appropriate. It seemed like a BRD case, but I don't know what to do now. Guidance please. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Zanhe's reply there to you hit the nail on the head. This appears to be one of those situations where someone tried to get their way, failed, so created a new - similar - article and tried to own it. I expect there to be little salvageable, and there are a lot of frayed nerves over there right now the panda ₯’ 11:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:7SeriesBOT

Have you permanently retired this bot? Please ping when replying — xaosflux ^Talk 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• No. Ever since a Wikipedia upgrade, I've been unable to fix it ... I need to get its developer to take a look the panda ₯’ 22:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, I was just checking through status on admin bots and saw it had been idle for a while, good luck on the new gears :) — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Racist abuse

Would you care to take a look at User talk:81.129.179.81 and edits at Talk:Free Tibet[8]? I'd as soon not give them even the momentary attention of WP:ANI. NebY (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done the panda ₯’ 11:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I'm a bit confused. I think you just deleted this page, but see it still exists. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone seems to like to recreate, it appears. Deleted. Deleted redirect. Salted both the panda ₯’ 23:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

There is currently an unblock request at User talk:BsBsBs, for a block you placed. I previously declined an unblock request from this editor, but he or she is now taking a very different line, and I am inclined to unblock. At the worst, it will be a WP:ROPE block leading rapidly to a re-block, and at best we get back an editor with the potential to be very constructive. What do you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching there as their tactic changed. I'm on your side when it comes to rope now. Indeed, if either you or I unblock it sends multiple strong messages. Feel free to go forward, in my opinion the panda ₯’ 10:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I will go ahead and unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey James, do we need to log that under WP:RESTRICT? the panda ₯’ 11:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Where on that page would it go? It obviously doesn't belong in the section "Placed by the Arbitration Committee", and I can't really see it as belonging under "Placed by the Wikipedia community" either. However, I do think that there should be a firmer record of the topic ban than just the talk page discussion, which may well disappear into editing history. The best idea I can think of is to amend the unblock reason to mention the topic ban. I shall do that, but if you think it should also go in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, or that anything else should be done, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Article "Cdnjs"

Hey DangerousPanda, I'm having trouble submitting "Cdnjs" which you recently declined. We are a completely free open source movement that makes $0, it is an offshoot project off [Cloudflare] and is the third largest CDN of it's kind. I felt compelled to submit after seeing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BootstrapCDN having it's own wiki. The only references that wiki page have are blog post from the company that runs the CDN. Could you explain why they are approved but Cdnjs is not? Just to re-iterate cdnjs is not a company, it is an open source package that is very widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.132.243 (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The short version is: I don't see anything about BootstrapCDN that shows me why it should be on Wikipedia either - in other words, it shouldn't be here, IMHO. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is one of those arguements that people shouldn't use - there's 10,000,000+ pages on Wikipedia and a couple of hundred active admins - we can't see them all. By the way, the fact that you're free/open source doesn't mean you don't promote: churches, charities, public schools - they all can suffer from promotion. It's one of the reasons that people involved in an entity should not be writing about them the panda ₯’ 08:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You have an email, DangerousPanda

It looks to me as there is an email in your inbox. You should go and check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLindsley (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

On-Wikipedia things should be kept on Wikipedia, not on e-mail unless privacy is an issue. You should be aware that we have to delete literally hundreds of articles every day - usually because people don't understand the concept of notability - which every single person agreed to when they edited Wikipedia the first time, and every time since. Wikipedia does not exist to document everything that exists - it's here to document notable topics, and ones that have extensive coverage in sources that are entirely unrelated to the organization or topic. So, you should not "feel like a criminal" for not understanding notability, or even for not having read WP:FIRSTARTICLE. You're not the first ... and you unfortunately won't be the last. Cheers. the panda ₯’ 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DLindsley's reply: Sorry about that. I was only angry that the article was deleted because there is an article on here about Sacred Heart Church in Dayton, Ohio. I was clearly told that a church is an organization. If that page wasn't removed, why mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLindsley (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There are 10 million+ pages on Wikipedia, and a few hundred active admins. Besides, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument - perhaps there are other ways that the other church meets the notability standards ... things like "the only building in the city to survive the great fire of 1903" (I made that up as an example). A church is treated the same as a corporation or charity - they still need to show notability the panda ₯’ 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

VacationFutures rejection

Can you please provide more specifics of what made the article "blatantly promotional"? Is there specific language that should be changed, or sections deleted and/or added?

The attack of the references I find confusing as they are currently a mix of national and international independent sources (US News & World Report, Tnooz, Skift), as well as regional and local newspapers (Atlanta Journal Constitution, News & Observer, Herald Sun).

Though you may be less personally familiar with the top industry sources for travel and technology news, or specific regional or local news outlets, that does not seem to make them less valid does it? If there are specific references you do not like, please let me know if they should be taken out, but as the objective and only global marketplace for guaranteed rental contracts in the $100 billion vacation rental industry, VacationFutures as an entity seems to justify an entry. If there are things that need to be done to make it more encyclopedic, please let us know what those are. Thank you for your help. Jenren4prez (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Though you may be less personally familiar with...news outlets"? Did you seriously say that to a journalist? Before you say "I didn't know that", you will of course be aware that it's listed on my userpage...where, I'm sure you looked before making such an insulting comment. Interesting that one is more likely to get assistance when one approaches people properly and politely. Your insults make me believe that you're related to the company, which would, of course, be even worse - but would at least explain why you think such an article should exist the panda ₯’ 12:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda - I did not in any way mean for that to be an insult. If you are not involved in the travel space specifically, you could certainly still be a journalist without knowing Tnooz and Skift, which was all I was saying. They are both relatively new (certainly not as old as things like the Atlanta Journal Constitution or US News & World Report), and so a lot of people outside of the specific industry are not terribly familiar with them.

The same could go for local news sources like the Herald Sun or Venture Atlanta. There was certainly no intention to make this personal.

The post was sincerely seeking input/advice/suggestions for how to make the article compliant. The initial submission was rejected for not having enough citations to independent sources, hence the inclusion of the sources mentioned above. This time the reason was that the article was "blatantly promotional." With the sources it was clearer how to remedy the problem. With the "blatantly promotional" concern, less so. Hence, I am just trying to work with you, and the community, to better understand what needs to be done to fit the criteria.

Again, I apologize for any offense my earlier post may have caused. I appreciate all of the work you and all of the volunteers that make Wikipedia possible do, and have no desire to insult you, your work, or your personal knowledge. Jenren4prez (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ivy Ross

Hello, I am writing re the NPOV dispute on the Ivy Ross article I contributed recently. I believe I addressed all the issues, especially in the Career section. Please have a look, and if you still feel it lacks neutrality, be so kind as to highlight the passages in question. Many thanks! Delcydrew (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:-- -- -- hit by autoblock of User:Funnycoolman

Hello DP. Please see this unblock request. If this user is in fact logging on through the same IP as User:Funnycoolman then you may want to check if it seems to be the same person. If not then the autoblock might be lifted. The areas of interest of User:-- -- -- and User:Funnycoolman look to be quite different. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur. This does not look like Funnycoolman. But I am curious. When Funnycoolman edits logged out, it always ends up showing as the currently blocked IP.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for helping CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 10:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear

This is in reference to the deletion of article title Yeezianity

First of all I apologize for recreating it, I thought I did something wrong and it was deleted by a bot. I didn't realize someone thought it was unfit for publication. I am still unsure what is needed for it to be published.

I don't understand what makes it "junk", it got press and public reaction. The article clearly explains what the idea is. It is a substantive idea. What is needed for the article to qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlybman (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're fully aware it wasn't deleted by a bot - you came here yesterday to talk about it, but then recreated it instead and removed your message. the panda ₯’ 09:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You deleted Andreas Hansen's page.. Why??

Andreas Hansen is a newly promoted goal keeper in Brøndby. He has been the first choise in the Under-19's team for 3-4 years and he has been on the bench on the first team more than just a couple of times, when he was still an under-19's player. Now he is the third keeper and I don't see a signle reason why he shoudn't be on Wikipedia, when he is third choise in the biggest club in Denmark and has been on several youth national teams too. I honestly don't know why you go around deleting paged about things you know absolutely NOTHING about.

Kongen af fodbold (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First thing: when you posted here, you saw the words "In short, an intelligent discussion is better than a diatribe or attack". So, "Things I know nothing about"? Here's a question for you, Kongen: has he played a game in a fully professional league? No, I'm not asking if he sat "on the bench", but actually played? No? Not yet? Still only 3rd choice? Then he fails to meet the strict notability requirements for footballers. Now, let's not even get into my extensive knowledge of football because that's a path you don't want to go down the panda ₯’ 10:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Meytal Cohen - further clarification

Hey DP, I read your reasoning for not un-deleting Meytal Cohen's page (Not done for 2 reasons: first, the only text in the article was pointing people to their website where people can buy stuff - wrong. Second, the notability requirements for music are rather strict, and this person does not meet them.) I believe she meets the requirements in Notability (People):

Entertainers
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Meytal is the most subscribed drummer on YouTube and has a large fan base and significant "cult" following.
Here are some links:
Meytal's Facebook page (+780,000 fans)
Meytal's YouTube channel (+100,000,000 views, +600,000 subscribers)

Some of her works and collaborations: Solo commercial for Tabitha Simmons and Craig McDean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoKsSD1eZak
Collaboration with Jordan Rudess (Dream Theater): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgXfRGLTdyg
Collaboration with N.E.R.D and Nelly Furtado (directed by Jonas Akerlund): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ZfA5QZDHY
Profile article on channel 10 (Israel) news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ImBZHyvYqY
Drum educational DVD package Maximum Meytal: http://www.maximummeytal.com
Endorsed as a top artist by Meinl Cymbals, DW Drums, Roland, Vic Firth, Evans and others: http://www.rolandus.com/artists/view/1791 http://meinlcymbals.com/artists/Artist/show/meytal-cohen-692

If you were so kind to undelete the page, I'm positive that one of Meytal's fans will quickly re-write the problematic 'commercial' language to a neutral, educational article.
Thanks so much.

It may be an idea to re-create an undeleted article in your userspace and get it proofed later on (I don't mean copy+paste from the previous article). It won't guarantee it against deletion but whilst it's in your userspace, there will be less focus. Badanagram (attempt) 08:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you insist that I was "wrong", get your facts straight

Entire prose of deleted article
Meytal Cohen is a drummer and an online drum instructor. She has several You Tube videos of heavy metal cover songs. Her web site is http://(Redacted) Here you will find information about the artist, her pictures and videos and her merchandise. She sells shirts, posters and drumsticks.

None of that, and none of what you state above meets WP:NMUSIC the panda ₯’ 09:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

DP - Understood, obviously the original contributor was very wrong in the nature of their contribution. Meytal is one of the most respected YouTube musicians, with close to 1M followers. Does she meet the criteria at WP:NPEOPLE? (2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyFromGA (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, try creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT or use WP:AFC (unfortunately, the "AFC review drive" is ending momentarily, or else it could have been reviewed very quickly) - use valid reliable sources (hint: youtube isn't one, nor is facebook). Have it reviewed. the panda ₯’ 18:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your close of AFD discussion on History of the Jews in Nepal

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.

---

You claim that the close was "a clear policy-based keep", but cite no policies, and would seem to have based the decision on a vote count. Please explain the policy-based rationale of your decision.

Secondly, you have suggested that my removal of fringe and unreliably sourced material was disruptive, while other editors agreed with the removal on the Talk page and have questioned what was re-inserted by the editor that is apparently editing in a field outside the scope of his competence. In particular, the "ancient history" section is completely devoid of reliably sourced content that affirms the existence of anything falling within the scope of history. That was added after numerous editors pointed out in the thread that, while ostensibly an article about history, the was nothing of historical note in the article whatsoever. Some of those editor's suggested a merge--with which I would not object--others a move without coming up with a fitting title that would meet Wiipedia's notability criteria.

Please explain what was disruptive about my contributions, or retract the comment. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you intend to venture a response to the above query?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it was best not to respond - especially based on your continued personal attacks in your original statement above. It was best to leave it alone and let it archive, AND let you take a few days to rethink your strategy and goals on the project. You have, after all, been appearing on admin radar in hazardous ways, and the above was unacceptable the panda ₯’ 09:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

New RfC

Hi, FYI in light of the above, and your recent close of the AfD of History of the Jews in Nepal (after there was a vote to Keep the title and the name), there is now an RfC, see Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no dog in that fight, and no opinion on the matter...but thanks for letting me know the panda ₯’ 12:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for History of the Jews in Nepal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of History of the Jews in Nepal. 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. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ubikwit, I do not appreciate your false statement in the DRV. However, I've come to expect that, so, whatever. the panda ₯’ 12:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

Request for admin attention

I would appreciate a admin set of eyes as review on Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 with specific attention to Darkwarriorblake's actions. I consider their response from 17:47, 30 June 2014 onward to be personal attacks against both myself and Werieth. I attempted to resolve this by relocating the offending sub-thread to the talk page base on WP:TPO Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism... with a hook from the original location. Darkwarriorblake did not consider the points to be personal attacks and had been called out by Werieth as being an attack. I request that you please review the actions and take action in the guise of an administrator to prevent further attacks from derailing the purpose of the RFC. I had previously appealed at Dennis Brown's talk page but was turned away because he is far too busy today and I would like feedback in a reasonable time frame. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok Hasteur, if you want "eyes" then it's ok to approach an admin. If you want "action" then ANI is the place to go. Seeing as this one seems to have already hit ANI, I don't think there's much more for me to do the panda ₯’ 10:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, the ANI thread was a SPA attempting to conduct a false flag operation on 3 of the leading opponents to returning Archive.is to normal status. This request is specifically dealing with the attack actions of DWB. Unless you are subtly hinting that the actions of the SPA are directly connected with DWB's actions (i.e. Sockpuppetry), I think this still needs to be looked at and corrective actions taken. Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Then file it on ANI yourself. As I said, asking for "eyes" is one thing, asking for action is an inappropriate attempt to circumvent processes and circumvent your requirement to notify the other party the panda ₯’ 12:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Crusoe blocking

Thanks for doing that so quickly. Awkward situation but there's now much less of a mess than there'd have been if it'd been left a couple of hours. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I never like to be thanked for blocking ... not a preferred role. Thanks, however, for cleaning up the panda ₯’ 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Automatic Archiving

How do you set your talk page to archive automatically? Thanks, --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 20:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

When you edit my talkpage, take a look at the first 8 lines or so. See WP:ARCHIVE for more details on the variables the panda ₯’ 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 00:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dov Schperling draft

Hello About the draft of "Dov Schperling". I removed the 2 unacceptable references. I added reliable sources that include articles from the National Israeli Newspaper archive. I hope this is now acceptable.--Schmuels (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let me phrase it this way: you have many paragraphs that are unsourced whatsoever. That cannot happen, especially when they make claims about him or his work the panda ₯’ 22:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nizari Wiki page

I am really interested in knowing what I have been doing wrong all this time on Wiki without even knowing something that is so obvious to you as you say it is! Thanks, and I mean that if you would kindly look at a couple of paragraphs from the huge amount of material deleted by Ogress which jpgordon seems to have approved as "good job". If you just give me a couple of points then I can get to work to clean up my errors and re-post the copy because there is a tremendous amount of info out there on Nizari Ismailism and at times I actually ask myself "Why bother, let them go read up the books if they are really interested in Nizari Ismailism," but then a friend told me that it is being generous to share one's knowledge. So, therefore I have re-posted the comment I made under your post in jpgordon's Talk Page below your comment reproduced here below. Thanks again:) (talk page stalker) Salim, I've read a number of your edit-summaries - some of which could have gotten you blocked. Those aren't "reasoned". They aren't evenacceptable for one human to say to another. You see to be lying in a bed that you have created yourself right now the panda ₯’ 00:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me this because clearly I am unaware of how I appear to others on the Wiki from the way you describe my edits. Okay, so what's the solution? I suggest you take a few moments to take a paragraph or two that you have found unacceptable and show me like I have been showing to jpgordon and you and others why I do what I have do from the long paras I have written so far. So please reciprocate that favor and show me where I went wrong by highlighting from a para or two from the Nizari Wiki Page if possible but please do not just repeat my angry words at Ogress or writing in caps on Talk Pages because I have gotten those messages now from jpgordon and will be careful - ultra careful - about those two things in the future. Your help - and that of jpgordon - in this matter can be crucial to my staying on board the Wiki because I am asking myself now the question: "What is the point of back-breaking toil if anyone can simply arrive on the scene, call themselves a "smasher" and smash things up?" - unless, of course, the fault is all mine and I am myself writing copy that is utterly unacceptable as you say it is. Thanks and I look forward to your telling me just exactly what you have read on my Wiki edits that have made you so displeased with my writing. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I haven't even LOOKED at the substance of your edits. I merely looked at your edit-summaries, which are enough to incite a feud:

• "Ogress is a vandall and deletes articles without any effort at rewriting the article. PLEASE STOP THIS VANDALL"

Vandalism has a definition. Calling someone a vandal is uncivil and a personal attack when they don't formally meet that definition

• "Putting Ogress' lies in front of his FACE so he can't miss his utterly meaningless nonsense comments"

Now you call them a liar. Again, inappropriate. No surprise they're pissed off.

In short, you may have been making some good edits, however always follow WP:BRD, take disputes to WP:DR, and don't call people names the panda ₯’ 08:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Panda: I started to write to you some time ago and lost it all due to a blackout. I'll begin again and save intermitently on a Word doc so I do not lose it all the next there is a B/O.

First of all my apologies for being really a newbie with Wiki terminology and practices. When you said I had "edited" your page I forgot you meant "wrote" on your page. So first off, I did "edit" your page; and secondly, I do appreciate your reply to my request to you for examples - and they are good examples that you have given!

My reply to these - and it is not a good enough reply in terms of good manners online - is that I wrote these every time Ogress was reverting or deleting my work without any attempt to rewrite it. You already may have read all my contentions against Ogress so I'll simply say that I got so many cuts and jabs from her that I lost my cool - always a baddie. So, jpgordon got on to my tail and warned me off - a good thing in hindsight! Only he was not ready to warn off Ogress also but was favoring her by being poised to block only ME the moment I had reverted back the Nizari deleted material in spite of the huge amount deleted by Ogress. This was not a right approach by Gordon and in fact pretty poor administrating by turning a blind eye to the provocation and the person doing it.

Again you are right that I should have marked your talk page for my watchlist and again it was a mistake on my part that the conversation would be carried on at Gordon's location (talkpage) since there were so many pages where this info was being posted. I stand corrected on this matter as well.

Finally, on the matter of "Mindy". It really was there on this page or your user page so that I was really pleased that you had kept that comment on your page thinking what a nice guy (this Panda) because by leaving that comment there he is accepting his error. So, I actually thot my writing about Midy's post on your page was praise given to you thru the backdoor - a person humble enuf to have accepted his fault! So, really I looked at you as both helpful and humble.

I apologize for all the misunderstanding this has caused due to my not being very good with Wiki manners and practices because I am returning to Wiki after about ayear or more of absence since no Wiki notices had been coming my way altho edits were being made on the Nizari page. Again, I must have botched up on marking them up for my watchlist.

Hurray, I made it to the end without any sudden B/O kicking in! I request this: let's please leave this where it is now at and if you can, please bring back on your page the "Mingy" post because it really makes you look good as a person with an open mind altho harsh for making the poor guy go to Mindy and thus making him eat the humble pie. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian

Regarding your comment to his unblock request, I understand that it looks like he was being impatient, but he wasn't really. I wasn't ignoring him — I simply hadn't gotten any notification that he had pinged me, so I was completely unaware that he'd made a reply. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you weren't ignoring him ... and at the same time, he needs to know that instant responses are not the norm here. If he had waited for your checkback (with or without a ping), you eventually would have gotten to him. The reason the echo didn't work in this case is because he did it wrong the first time. Echo only works if a new signature appears with the post, not if you modify an existing post with no new sig. Anyway, you're welcome to unblock - his new unblock is GAB-compliant, and for all intents and purposes, he did accept your restriction the panda ₯’ 17:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually, I might not have checked back until/unless the other guy had responded, and anyway the conditions were only if he wanted me to unblock him — I thought it more likely that he'd request unblock from someone else than that he'd request it from me. Meanwhile, with Vorobieva, I was suspecting that it was the company's branch located in Vorobieva or something like that. Now that you say it, I note that a Google search for "Vorobieva" returns mostly last-name results; if I'd known that, I wouldn't have made the objection I did. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an additional suggestion: perhaps you could - in order to defuse any future problems - help clarify the main point of contention in "Oathkeeper". Darkfrog24 is under the impression that primary sources are sufficient to compare the chapters used from the book in a tv show. I (and many, many others) have stated that, for such a comparison, a secondary source is necessary. Since she isn't listening to me (or to a consensus), perhaps some tips from an admin would help. I'd also point out that DF is also upset that none of us are excepting blog sites circular sources as reliable.
It would appear to me that offering an ounce of prevention is worth a lot more than a trout-slap of a cure. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That was a request for your help and input beyond calling me impatient, if you were curious. Don't worry - I'll be patient for your response. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I recognize you issued a request, but I was under the impression that User:Nyttend had already made the related comments, as he was already involved in the series of discussions the panda ₯’ 10:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the input Nyttend offered in the article discussion for "Oathkeeper", but that's where the point of contention exists. What has gone largely unaswered in DRN, RfC and AN/I is the clarification regarding use of primary sources. I could spell it out in a bit more detail as to the specific problem, if you were so inclined to help out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

somehow help

so i was user with other name until couple weeks ago user start to change Shadmehr Aghili page that i am specifically work on, and delete a text that made a person more attractive to his fans so they try to compete me or not, until in one paragraph that made the person king and his a king but the music business wont make it official so one user start to manipulate me with source proof to delete the key paragraph and made it a legel deleting , in that moment i was just a customer user so i lose the battle and its ok not a big deal so i got blocked and i creat this user to costume the page and again on purpose undo the deleting that person was so serious about his work and a key paragraph now the page get kind a protection just for autocomfirmed and my user is underdog wont reach to edit the page, iwant to know if this source needed so serious way just my page there is categories about non source things so i thing the paragraph is the truth of Shadmehr Aghili page and his a king and user cant handle the truth if not way they want to delete the non prove paragraph that just a saying this person is the king Magnetsum 13:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetsum (talk • contribs)

Ok, I'm reasonably bright, but I'm having trouble understanding most of what you just said. However, what you seem to be admitting above is that you have violated our WP:SOCK policy (something that leads to an immediate block) by creating a new userid to edit an article you edited with another id, simply so that you could "show that you're serious". It's possible you even created this userid to evade a block which is even worse because a block applies to the PERSON who is blocked. I declined your Permissions request because your edits so far are atrocious - and the sole reason you seem to want confirmed is to continue making those edits. Do I understand this correctly? the panda ₯’ 14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be User:Purekaf, who is blocked until 2nd August 2014, and wishes to describe Shadmehr Aghili as "The King of Persian Pop" or something similar, unsourced of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

no, the reason i post a topic in your talk i what to text the "king of persian pop" with your accepting and see th reaction, other reason that i what to change page to new level of editing more than average customizing because i am xxxxxordinary fan of Shadmehr Aghili it is less i can do for his greatness, of course some people are jealous about his wonderful music level whatever its not a big matter but i will promise you if no one made my problem fix as i what i will delete my user and create block elements of wikimedia in my browser and i will never use wikipedia again, way i use when they try push me away maybe they don't like me just like i sees itsnot a big deal i can find and made information or anything else even without tech cause i have powerful mind, peace dear DP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetsum (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Please provide a justification for your recent revert on Autism therapies or undo it as mistaken. The last edit brought the linguistic style of the article in line with a consensus determined on Talk:Autism and included no other changes whatsoever. Muffinator (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I find no such consensus on that talkpage the panda ₯’ 08:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion thread was titled "autistic person" vs "person with autism" and was closed by User:Sunrise stating that it ended with consensus. Muffinator (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, 2 things: first, it's YOUR responsibility to provide links to discussions, not for others to go "digging". Second, that "consensus" is on a completely different article. It doesn't formally have precedence over other related articles. For example, I watchlist some autism-related articles, but not that one - as such, I was never notified of a discussion that would change commonly-used terms across all autism-related articles. That decision would need much more visibility. Please note: I have suggested a topic ban for you on the same ANI thread that you were previously involved in, and you're proving why it's necessary more-and-more the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm not familiar with how to directly link to sections on a talk page, but I did specify the text of the header after you stated that you were unable to find it (without knowing what the header was). I don't see how this is a reason to issue a ban.

If the main autism article is not a visible enough place to determine consensus for issuing involving all autism-related articles, where would you suggest the discussions take place instead? Muffinator (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on this particular question, but just noting that I've replied to the ANI thread in response to your ping. Sunrise (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Yes, that edit summary was wrong , but I can recall a few occasions (can't find diffs) I was called a son of a bitch and bastard by User:Drmies in edit summaries. And looking at his contributions, he has attacked lots of editors in his summaries (mostly vandals/disrupters).Bmag32 (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Bmag32, if you're going to accuse someone, you'll need proof - or else it's a personal attack - so, either link to it, or withdraw it. Besides, even if it were the case, it's your responsibility to take the high road, not the childish road the panda ₯’ 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So you just don't want to admit that an admin actually attacked me. Even if I can't find the diff you'd expect they user to do something like they from his personality. What I'm wondering is is if that is an offense or not. I know I shouldn't have done it, I just don't like admins thinking they can violate policies "because they are administrators."Bmag32 (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I admit you were attacked if you won't show me the proof? Prof Mies is a well-respected academic and admin, so is it possible he did? Maybe, but you'll need to prove it. Nobody can "get away with it" - including admins. the panda ₯’ 08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, fallacious reasoning on both sides of an argument. Evidence is important in any matter of determining whether something is true. Prof Mies either did something or didn't do it. Being "a well-respected academic and admin" is irrelevant. The onus in this case is on Bmag32 to locate the evidence. A user's personality is not strong evidence, therefore the claim can be dismissed if no other evidence is provided. Muffinator (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, you said exactly what I said - so how was my "argument" somehow "fallacious reasoning". I emphasized that Drmies status was irrelevant, and that proof was needed ... so how is yoru statement different than mine? the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Stating that "Prof Mies is a well-respected academic and admin" is an appeal to authority. Muffinator (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Only if you cut off the second half of the sentence - which is unacceptable for logic purposes. The two phrases are intertwined, so there is no suggestion of appeal to authority. You can't ethically pull written words out of context like that the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, she's hardly well respected--just ask her boss. Panda, who is this person? I won't appeal to authority, but I can appeal to tradition, as an Alabamian: I don't think "son of a bitch" and "bastard" are in my regular vocabulary. And Muffinator, if someone is, say, a known jerk, one could with reason suspect them of acting jerkily in a specific instance, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Interesting: here are the pages which this editor and I both edited. Perhaps they have an alternate account which delivers more spectacular results. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Bmag32, you better start talking. You insulted me by claiming I insulted you, but you didn't provide any evidence. That's a pretty low blow. Produce that evidence or apologize. (Panda, sorry for this taking place on your talk page.) Drmies (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's ok Drmies, I already requested User:Bmag32 provide his proof so that I could take whatever action was required. They're refusing to do so. WP:WIAPA would suggest that it's now them doing the attacks ... but hey, nobody wants to defend themselves or admin they made an error. My talkpage is as good as any the panda ₯’ 23:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Weeeeell, not as good as mine: I have a resident interior decorator who adorns it periodically. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Panda's talkpage: come for the free porn; stay for the sadly unfulfilling arguments" the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of sadly unfulfilling, your last block/close was devoid of any words of wisdom. I would also note that your typo above "admin they made an error" is almost Freudian. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I left fairly extensive words in the ANI close, and linked to that close in the block - I considered that to be my words of wisdom. I'm more of a fan of Horney, so ... meh. LOL the panda ₯’ 23:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And had you remembered to use "result=" I would have seen those words ;) I added it, so now your close is actually showing up. That said, I would say that was a good, clean closing statement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, did I forget the "1="? Long day, I suppose ... or maybe as Piguy101 suggests it was due to my eyesight having dropped a couple of quality points going all over those discussions :-) Thanks for fixing it the panda ₯’ 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I thought that the closing statement was excellent. I pity you for having to read the entire discussion, which was scattered across several pages. Now we have to deal with Carriearchdale's numerous XfDs. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Since you closed the AN report, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MediaViewer RfC may be of interest to you. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavia C. Gernatt

Dennis Brown declined due to involvement. He suggested I ask you. Any chance you might consider closing this? It was part of the whole Carriearchdale thing. The reason I am asking is although it has been open only 6 days, It was initiated in bad faith, and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus. The only delete was by Carrie, the nominator, and the rest seems pretty evenly split between keep and merge to her husband's article. It has also been edited for clarity 3 times and the whole mess is just that, a mess. Perhaps you could close it as no consensus and get it over for the greater good? John from Idegon (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Just to add, there are 6 keep votes, 3 merge and/or redirect votes, and 1 delete vote (from the editor identified above). Thanks for your time Dangerous Panda, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your support in a recent matter, I appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Memills

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.

---

Hi DP - thanks for at least closing that appropriately described steaming pile, but would you mind also taking a look at the previously endorsed community probation and making Memills forcibly leave the topic area for a period of time, even if that's not an indefinite period of time? I literally cannot think of a single actually productive contribution he's made in the entire area. It's already difficult for contributors who want to build content in that realm to do so, and seeing a giant clusterfuck of a thread where every person who actually assessed the situation supported a tban closed with a "Sorry, you have to keep dealing with him" makes me want to just write off the entire topic area (and most good faith contributors have already done so.) It's never going to be an easy area to edit in, but when contributors who literally contribute zero benefit in an entire topic area can't be removed from it, it's pretty much a guarantee that people who actually want to contribute are going to be driven off. You know as well as I do that regardless of how Memills behaves in the future, starting an AN section about in the future won't result in a different result - it'll result in the same thing, an incredibly long thread filled with pointless vitriole that results in absolutely no action being taken. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I have faith in DP's good judgment, but I think it would be wrong for him to close that topic with what amounts to a very stern warning and then turn around and ban Memills, even if it's for shorter than indefinite. I know you don't want to hear this, but, with all due respect, I think you should take a break from this for a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: - have you noticed how the number of people contributing to the general topic area of men's rights productively has significantly diminished, and how the vast majority of contributors who understood and followed our sourcing and content policies have either quit or greatly scaled back on how frequently they contribute? There's a pretty distinct reason for that. Having to deal with a constant swarm of new editors while assuming good faith and explaining the same policies over and over again is vaguely annoying but tolerable. Having to deal with an area where editors who have literally never made a single positive contribution to the topic area and hijack every potentially productive conversation are allowed to continue contributing to the topic area isn't. When I started editing, our articles related to men's rights literally said shit like anti-dowry laws are a form of legal terrorism and all feminist organizations use the fear of domestic violence to repress men. Most of the articles in the topic area still suck, but they no longer expose tens of thousands of people a month to the complete shitfest that they were. Know what happens when all of our editors who understand what a reliable source is get pissed off at the constant inability of the community to handle the situation and quit or leave the topic areas? The articles will promptly return to their previous state, if not worse. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, with all due respect to DP's judgement, no one should be able to say the phrase "a very stern warning" in the context of someone with seven previous sanctions in an area on probation who has made sanctionable violations in the last 30 days with a straight face. DP's close is what it is, but it sure as hell isn't a "very stern warning." Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, take @Bbb23:'s good advice. We both have strong opinions and see things related to this topic very differently. We have engaged in a long slug-fest. We both need a cooling down period and a chance to lick our wounds. Let's both step away from this topic for awhile. Memills (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well we at least agree on one thing: we sure have differing opinions. I believe in writing a neutral, collaborative encyclopedia that follows our basic sourcing policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure slapping an olive branch out of his hand is all that helpful. Needless to say, there are more eyes on that topic and anything that approaches WP:DE will be dealt with appropriately. Hopefully, it won't be needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I have significant respect for you, but the suggestion that the AN thread brought additional eyes to the topic that will deal with disruptive editing is only remotely true if you mean "for the next two weeks." I'm honestly tempted to either tag the MRM probation page as humorous or historical, though I'm not sure which is more appropriate. There's a distinct reason that 80% of productive editors formerly active in the topic area now edit it rarely if ever: because the community has consistently demonstrated that it's unwilling to enforce basic content or behavioral policy in the entire suite of articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an editor retention concern, I get that, I'm familiar with those. But unless you are willing to revert DP's close, your only other choice is to live with it. I expect to keep an eye out myself, and I'm unencumbered by any prior participation and not a fan of interaction or topic bans. Right now, you are livid and your ability to filter what you are typing is diminished. Best to go read a book or watch some mindless TV for the evening. (I recommend Futurama) We all get pissed off from time to time, it is just your turn right now. Recognize it and don't be a slave to it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not livid; I'm disappointed. They are significantly different emotions. Despite ENWP being notoriously bad at retaining editors with the requisite access to sources and desire to write actual balanced articles, I had anticipated the collective community not being foolish enough to finish the job it had started of driving away people from MR related articles who follow our behavioral policies and have a desire to write sourced articles that follow our content policies in favor of allowing the asylum to take over. Which, in retrospect, was clearly a misjudgment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I see both, but the advice applies either way, and is yours to do with as you please. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've linked this discussion at an WP:AN discussion opened by Kevin [9]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: Here is Memills calling me a "gender feminist" (whetever that is). So much for the "very stern warning". It's just one of many examples of Memills' strange world view. If you disagree with him or like-minded editors you're the enemy aka a "gender feminist". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not questioning anyone's conclusions, just their methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  What's the point of the "very stern warning" if Memills can just continue his provocations? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  Seconded. Panda closed the discussion pointing out that Memills was harassing people and should withdraw from the topic area before being indef banned, and Memills posted that less than half an hour later. It's clear that he views the result as totally vindicating all his actions, when that wasn't the case and wasn't what Panda stated. The disruption is obviously going to continue, and it's better just to ban him now since he's obviously not going to take the discussion to heart and improve his behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment My close was quite clear that Memills was being disruptive. It was very clear that their behaviour on MR articles was appalling. It was very clear that they need to fricking stop or else. However, our role as admins is NOT to have a "super!vote" - it's to read the discussion and determine consensus. This one was indeed challenging for many reasons. However, consensus was that although the resrictions on those articles are vital, and Memills was pushing the envelope too much, it was not quite enough for an indefinite block...yet. If their behaviours have continued, then I'm not beyond logging into my admin account and performing an immediate block - THAT is the message that they needed to get out of the close. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Update Any editor or admin watching this page should be aware of this warning just placed on Memills page, and should be prepared to act if it continues anywhere on the project. In my mind, it would follow the "escalating blocks" based on the topic restrictions, but if serious enough could be immediately indefinite the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic that you say your close would have been different if he had made the comment before you implemented it given that you've both said you had no latitude in your close and Memills has literally been doing the exact same shit the entire time he's been in the topic area. He's made a hundred more offensive comments than that and still remains here, I sincerely doubt he'll take your warning about his 101st comment seriously. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86 complains that I referred to her as "a 'gender feminist' (whetever that is)."

Re-read my comment -- I did not call her a gender feminist. Even if I had, that is not "a provocation" -- many gender feminists proudly identify as such. Heck, I've been called an MRA (and worse). I am not an MRA. But I don't consider that, or the comments above that I have "strange world view," or that "It's clear that he views the result as totally vindicating all his actions" (I never said or suggested that), as a big deal.

The term "gender feminist" referred to what Shakehandsman wrote at the top of his Talk page:

"Please bear in mind that I really don't appreciate sexism or those with a record of anti-gender equality contributions (particularly if working together in organised groups). Regrettably, due to the present biases on Wikipedia, anyone with a misandrist or gender feminist outlook or background is respectfully asked not to post here please."

As evidenced here, some folks who are unhappy with the AN result seem unwilling to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Memills (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Many gender feminists proudly identify as such?" Bullshit. The term was coined by Christina Hoff Sommers explicitly as a slur against mainstream feminism, and I've never seen someone actually identify as a gender feminist. Accusing someone of being a gender feminist who does not identify as such is an explicit personal attack - by it's common usage it's accusing someone of being a gynocentric misandrist. I suppose you can identify yourself however you please and I can't contradict you or provide stronger evidence than your on-wiki statements provide without violating outing, but it's pretty safe to say that, if not an MRA, you're certainly a fellow traveller. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Memills: Oh goody, you were referring to "misandrist and gender feminist" and mentioned me in that context, lovely. Btw, what makes you think that I'm a woman? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I did not refer to SonicYouth86 as a "gender feminist" (whether one sees that as a good or bad thing). But, although I disavow being an MRA, you state that "if not an MRA, you're certainly a fellow traveller." That is a provocation (one of many you have directed toward me). But I will leave it be... Memills (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as we're discussing Memills's post-closure comments, there's this on Ihardlythinkso's talk page, which I interpret as a personal attack of Kevin Gorman:

Thanks for your support at the recent AN incident. You consistently cut through the BS and tell it like it is -- all without relying on the crutch of picayune wikilawyering or WP memes. Damn, that is so refreshing! Your "deconstruction" of Kevin Gorman's behavior, and his constant WP policy violations that are so conveniently overlooked by his admin-friends, was riotously funny (and sadly true). Were all WP editors / admins as above-board and "shoot from the hip" as you. Kudos and thanks! ([10])

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not seeing it. Arkon (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The sad thing is if I wanted to be a dick about it there would never have been an AN thread about Memills. It would have been literally trivially easy to contact any administrator I know through a private channel and get Memills handed a one year topic ban with no AN thread involved, since one isn't required by the terms of the probation in place. I didn't do so because I think such issues should be able to be satisfactorily handled in an above the board manner that doesn't involve needing to do something like that, and that it's a sign of a dysfunctional community if that's not true. I have the feeling that Memills doesn't recognize what actual admin abuse looks like, and that IHTS continually forgets that I'm literally ENWP's 12th most recently elected admin. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Memills doesn't recognize what actual admin abuse looks like, and that IHTS continually forgets that I'm literally ENWP's 12th most recently elected admin...."

Is that a threat? If so, it is stunningly inappropriate.

Note: I wrote the below before I saw Kevin's post above.

I could make a very, very long list of diffs of the many personal aspersions that Kevin has cast in my direction, both pre- and post-closure. There is one just above, a false and defamatory statement about me that was retracted and removed by the author which Kevin then linked to and re-affirmed, repeated statements that I have contributed "nothing of value" to Wikipedia, the blatantly false assertion that I compare editors with whom I disagree to "radical Islamists advocating violence," and on and on... For this incivility no admin has sanctioned Kevin or even reprimanded him.

Above I offered an olive branch to Kevin "We both need a cooling down period and a chance to lick our wounds" which, according to @Dennis Brown:, Kevin responded to by "slapping (it) out of his hand."

Kevin is an admin himself, and per WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to lead by example" and that includes behaving "in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others..." and "model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility..."

It also states that administrators need to "...use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute."

All of the involved parties here were just subject to "one giant load of crap from across all sides of the discussion." The AN discussion is closed -- it is inappropriate to continue it here. It is time for everyone to step back, cool down, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. As I mentioned at Kevin's most recent AN request, this needs to stop. Memills (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If you really meant that, you wouldn't be leaving messages like that on talk pages. I don't call that stepping back.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" the panda ₯’ 00:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea that pointing out that I was only very recently elected an admin and pointing out that I believe in letting the community handle issues instead of going through backchannels is a threat is really just kind of comical. I'll believe that Memills is offering an olive branch to anyone when he starts productively contributing to the topic area he's been constantly disrupting the entire time he's been active in it. Until then, I'll continue to hope that someone comes to their senses and tbans a continually disruptive editor who has made zero productive contributions in his entire record of contributing to a topic area under probation. Handing out a lengthy tban is within the discretion of every admin that is not involved in the area regardless of the fact that DP thought consensus was against an indefinite tban (though seemed to suggest he thought otherwise immediately afterwards,) and choosing not to tban such an editor but instead to give them their last, last last, no, really, we mean it this time, last warning is certainly not the course of action I would take in dealing with a disruptive editor on Indian caste pages, or any of the other areas with active sanctions that I'm not involved with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

LouisAragon evading block

Hi, just wanted to share this, I reported LouisAragon (talk · contribs) at ANI for evading block. [11]--39.47.212.219 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blongnos

Hi DP. A courtesy note to advise you that I've unblocked this user, since they have agreed to cease editing the Reel One Entertainment page. Seems pretty cut and dried, so I didn't come here to ask your blessing first; if you have a problem with the unblock, though, please let me know. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 10:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No issues - the spamming, and editing 180 degrees contrary to what he promised were the issues. Thanks for letting me know! the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible misuse of user talk page by blocked user?

Please see recent changes to User talk:Carriearchdale. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily abusive, but you're always welcome to remind her that the sole reason she still has access to it is for unblock purposes, not further communication. Remind her that access can be removed the panda ₯’ 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to look at her more recent "in meoriam to Carrie-wasn't she great?" post as well. That one is kind of funny-how often do you see someone apparently cherry-picking what are basically obit quotes about themselves? John Carter (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I saw it. Still not acting on anything the panda ₯’ 00:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps hasty user name block

Hi Panda: I'm concerned by your user name block of Fagfacerkelly. It's possible that all they mean is they smoke cigarettes, and their two edits were normal newbie stuff. Hence I had welcomed them and dropped them a note about the name a couple of hours before you blocked. I contemplated adding the symbol at WP:UAA for "hold off; being discussed" but couldn't find the key to those at the instructions page and was too lazy to search further, for which I apologize. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It clearly says "Fag Face R. Kelly". You'll want to visit his article, especially the underage sex. Not even a question about that one the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know bupkis about popular music, what I saw was edits to players on European soccer teams and a plausible UK English user name: Kelly with a ciggy in his/her mouth. I hope they request unblock so we can find out. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not that it's any of my business, but I immediately read it the same way DP did, in spite of being a Brit. And I can't imagine any British kid referring to himself/herself as Fagface. Fag is a commonly used slang term for cigarette in the UK, but the US meaning of the term is also commonly known, especially among younger people. So if a chav would describe someone as a "fagface", you can rest assured that it has nothing to do with cigarettes. Thomas.W ^talk 15:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Superbook

Too bad that writing reliable articles is not important any more. The Banner talk 22:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is. But AFD is not for "fixing", and it's pretty disruptive because you already know that the panda ₯’ 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a serious concern and never intended to be disruptive. Sorry when you see it differently and sacrifices reliability over that. The Banner talk 23:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"You didn't like the references"...bah: pointy. You seem to have a recent history of WP:POINTY nominations of things - THAT is why it's disruptive. the panda ₯’ 23:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And where did I say that? The Banner talk 00:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jfjdjfjtjtjfjf

User:Jfjdjfjtjtjfjf was just created, and immediately began vandalizing my user page in the same manner as User:Hhdndnfn. Could please semi-protect my user page for a few days? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done the panda ₯’ 23:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Now we're here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_wheelwarring_shenanigans. Dreadstar ☥ 00:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering the unrepentant and continued attacks on others, I'd recommend an indefinite ban on page moves with this user - until they show understanding of the disruption they have caused and will refrain from further attacks and disruption of this nature. . Dreadstar ☥ 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that would be punitive. The page move ban is because he blows at moving pages properly, and refuses to follow process and criticism. Extending that because of WP:NPA and non-AGF would be punitive to say the least. Blocks? Probably will happen before I wake up if he keeps this crap up the panda ₯’ 00:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the user understands the issue at hand and am concerned that he will continue either now or in the future when the ban expires, that's not punitive, that's preventative. But I won't push the issue and haven't, merely a suggestion. ") Dreadstar ☥ 01:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Before seeing this, I placed my 2ct on the user's talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer "education," but sometimes it seems that a cluebat needs to be administered when the person in need of education fails to understand what the problem is. The problem here is not the particular drama of any given topic, it is the consistent behavior that accompanies such dramas. Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I move many pages, but if it is not liked, I go and apologize, - it hasn't happened lately, I get better estimating what is acceptable, - the impossible City Castle (Weimar) (not a castle, in a city only in a very narrow sense) was successfully improved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

...and a topic ban is usually the step just prior to a block. TBAN's are for users who have a positive editing history, and a potentially positive editing future, but need to be booted out of a problem area for a period of time to stop self-destruction the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, he and I are on the same side. See Talk:Mustang horse. He may be turning over a new leaf. May want to watch and see. Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I typically have no issues with him as an editor ... so "new leaf", meh... the panda ₯’ 23:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Aidan0007 report on AIV

re your cmt on AIV I'm not sure what is going on with the logs, but the edit I reported him for was more than 2 hours after the warning, as the diffs I linked to show. I'm not the only one who sees that edit. Meters (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed them all in UTC when I posted, not the mix you sometimes see between talkpage entries vs contributions. Nevertheless, doesn't meet definition of vandalism, as per my most recent post there the panda ₯’ 00:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't looking at talk page time stamps. I was looking at the UTC time stamps on the diffs I reported. Look at the page history and you will see the same times. And I have to disagree that he is not vandalizing the page. The page history and the content of his edits is clear. Aside from the blanking and everything else, now he appears to be attempting to insert a bogus entry, and every time he puts it in he changes what he says about it (the release year, what operating systems it is offered on, etc). I don't consider that a content dispute. Meters (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi B. Wilkins—

I'm sure that I've popped off on you a dozen times or more over the years and I'm not apologizing for anything, nor asking you to forgive and forget. I do want to say that the old adage that "politics makes strange bedfellows" is very true. Wikipedia, we the volunteers, you and I, face a crisis in the near future, that being the imposition of Flow — which is a bureaucratically-driven software abortion that will severely disrupt the project if implemented. So here's my right hand, let's shake until this common threat of ours is beat back. best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Account Confirmation

Hello, I recently made the following request for account confirmation:

remove copy/paste from elsewhere - don't do that please

I didn't mean that I would edit the protection of the page, I meant that I would request it (to be semi-protected) and would still like to be able to edit it (as a confirmed account) as opposed to making dozens of edit requests, which is simply not practical. I didn't say my edits were superior, only that they were legitimate, and welcomed the edits of other legitimate editors as well. I find it odd that you would say "based on your contributions so far", considering my edits have only added factual, accurate information with hundreds of citations (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadith_of_position&diff=618021164&oldid=617768469 ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samiri_%28Islamic_figure%29&diff=617895972&oldid=555169907 ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadith_of_the_Twelve_Successors&diff=617925513&oldid=614952222&xxAutoPagerimmedialate-load-count=3 ; etc.) Note: The term 'Sunni heretics' was used in reference to extremists, several of whom have since been banned for vandalism, who were blanking pages because the content of the page went against their religious beliefs. There are also Shiah heretics, Christians heretics, Jewish heretics, Hindu heretics, Atheist heretics, etc. A heretic is defined by Dictionary.com as "a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church." It was in no way an 'insult', and several of them have since been banned for vandalism. This is not to refute you, but rather to clarify since you misunderstood the details of my request, so that you may properly comprehend it and reconsider your decision based on what the request actually was. Thanks. IsLioTr (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't ever copy/paste from elsewhere like you did above. You don't need to be confirmed to request protection - so it's an odd request. Plus, your attacks on other editors remain unacceptable - trust me, I know that there are many types of heretics, but on Wikipedia you agreed to comment on edits, never on editors the panda ₯’ 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I suspect that 95.141.31.4 (talk · contribs · count) and IsLioTr are the same person editing in tandem, even at RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:IsLioTr block & subsequent IP-sock

After raising Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IsLioTr request I noticed that 'IsLioTr' had been already blocked when I raised this request, I think user is now using IP(s) to carry forward his contributions on WP i.e. user accessing WP anonymously by not logging-in (thru IP(s)) after getting blocked. I'm looping you in as you had blocked the user.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Toes and stuff

Not to step on your toes here, but I extended the block on this editor due to their BLP violations, unrepentant attitude and continued attacks against others. Feel free to revert me if you feel my action is unwarranted. Dreadstar ☥ 07:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer187

User Evildoer187, has returned to Wikipedia and has violated his topic ban. This ip belongs to him and he is using it to avoid his topic ban. He states in this edit summary that it belongs to him. I have decided to come to you since you were involved in his topic ban. Can you permanently block this ip since it appears to be attached to him and no other computer? If not what can be done? Thanks! AcidSnow (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Taio Cruz

I am not going to have another try at changing the TC page as I can see that you are an experienced editor. However, the page has apparently been used as PR for the artist in the past and the same thing seems to be happening again. Holly har (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been used for PR - hence the removal of their website as a source. Keep your eye on it, and still keep working at it the panda ₯’ 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender template

That {{they|DangerousPanda}} is handy, thanks for the tip! Hmm... it shows "they" for Bishonen but "she" for the dainty Bishzilla. Which is just as it should be. Or, hmmm... maybe I should change the "identifies as" thing in my prefs after all. I assume that's what does it. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Hey Bish, it is useful ... I think there's an easier one somewhere, but that one's useful in mid-sentence. I think there is a possessive version too. It does read your gender pref...which for dainty monsters would be a challenge. After all, many monsters have genetic relationships to dino's and some amphibians that can change gender if needed :-) the panda ₯’ 16:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the sweet little twins, Bishapod's socks, long ago identified their genders very properly in their prefs, so {{they|Darwinbish}} and {{they|Darwinfish}} will show who's who. That's besides the fact that they constantly refer to each other as "my gormless brother" and "my evil sister". And still people will tend to assume that the bitey, evil Darwinbish is the boy and the harmless Darwinfish is the girl! That's what I call sexism! Bishonen | talk 17:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks (again)

Thanks (I pressed the 'thanks' button but I felt it was not enough). I went through sheer hell on my own RfA, and as you know, I led that ill fated RfA reform project some years ago. I do my best - but I can't guarantee it all the time ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

...for [12] — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Tell me more

When I saw this, I assumed I screwed up in some way, so I went back and looked through what I said ... and I don't get it. We really don't have enough closers for the big RfCs these days, and I don't want to do anything that's going to put you off. Whatever the problem is, there will probably be another PC2 RfC along before too long, so it's easily fixed ... if you're willing to let me know what looked wrong, and come back on board. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Link, please

Hi, DP. Re: this comment,[13] could you please provide a link to the ArbCom that decided this? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Look up Eric Corbett or his previous username. Heck, look up "cunt" - it was all over the ArbCom case the panda ₯’ 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this is the ArbCom case that you're referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, I see no statement that says "'Cunt' is not blockable." The word isn't even on the Main case page or in the Proposed decision. It appears frequently on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but I see nothing that says the word isn't blockable. What the findings say is that although Malleus Fatuorum has a "history of making valuable editorial contributions to the project," he also "has also personalized disputes to the point of making personal attacks, and has made provocative and/or uncivil comments." (Only a handful of "numerous" examples given.) It also says that MF "has been blocked 13 times for incivility and disruption." (This was as of February 2012.)

This only strengthens the argument that EC (AKA Malleus Fatuorum) was making a personal attack when he said, "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one," in a discussion about civility that, up until that point, was quite civil.

If you want to present evidence to the contrary, I'll read it, but I'm not going to do your work for you. It's your position to prove, not mine. Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that ArbCom refused to take specific action, even though Eric used "cunt" is unfortunately proof that it's not blockable, depending how it's used. The policy WP:NPA is clear: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors" (emphasis mine). The words "directed against" are vital. If I randomly say "cunt", am I directing it at anyone? If I say "User:XQTYXYZ is a cunt", then yes I am. the panda ₯’ 20:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"The fact that ArbCom refused to take specific action...." MF was topic-banned and admonished. Those are specific actions. I think this bickering has gone on long enough. I have other things to do, don't you? I certainly don't wish to talk any further about a two-and-one-half year old action against an editor who has since changed his username, if not his habits. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

He changed his name to his real name. The point remains that is isn't the specific words we use, it is how we use them that matters. That is the very core of how admin react to any behavioral situation, attacks really aren't tolerated, and we don't discriminate or favor anyone because of race, religion, culture or gender. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked Eric in this case, and I was completely opposed to further action. He had been blocked, and served his block. ArbCom did not overturn my block, or say that it was invalid, so you cannot say with certainty that ArbCom did not believe that "you're a fucking cunt" was not a personal attack. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Page watchers and contributors...

I warmly welcome you all to join the Wikipedia:Boston Tea Party. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	A bad block is a bad block and I respect any admin that is "man" enough to stand up and say it was wrong. Dear lord I couldn't find any better phrase for that so pun was intended. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that HiaB...I don't think I ever called it a "bad block" - I fully understand and respect BHG's decision to block. There is, however, no consensus to keep him blocked. Not sure I deserve an award for it the panda ₯’ 00:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You deserve it. HiaB beat me to the barnstar. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While I'm gone, and you're BBQ'ing me/burning me in effigy

Colleagues/fellow human beings. For those who have forgotten, don't forget to re-read this - it's something I passionately believe in. Ruminate on that. Cheers the panda ₯’ 00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, screw you, Panda, eating, shooting, and then leaving. Thanks for the unblock. Why anyone would be blocked for the equivalent of "you're stupid" is beyond me, as is the astonishing lack of AGF in "enabling admins". Drmies (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For future use, may I gift the lot of you with my Equine trout? Enjoy! Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

He was guilty of having a smart mouth, nothing more. If he could rightly be blocked for a poke of sarcasm, then I venture 90% of Wikipedia should probably also be blocked. The act of "trouting" is FAR more immature and hurtful in my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate

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.

---

I find it fascinating that you have such a fluid interpretation of WP:NPA that you could consider "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" not to be a personal attack, but would consider "I noted that discussion is open for other editors and I would like to objectively discuss with anyone who is rational and reasonable." a personal attack.

You should not have unblocked Eric Corbett, and claiming consensus for doing so is absurd. The drama would have dissipated by simply closing the discussion. Why you chose to use your admin tools to further inflame the drama is beyond my comprehension.- MrX 17:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a poor move. The block was valid under the NPA policy which enjoys consensus. While you may have certain opinions about our NPA policies the use of admin tools should be based off of consensus. NPA enjoys wide consensus and while there are a small group of people who disagree with it they have no influenced the consensus at this policy. I left my trout at home so no fish for you today. Chillum 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. BWilkins, your claim of "consensus" for your actions in that discussion is absolutely untenable, and if you have any sense of responsibility at all, you should reverse the administrator action you've taken there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to add my voice asking you to reverse this, or to ask another administrator to do it for you if you'd like to disengage. This is an editor who was being deliberately provocative by saying "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" in a discussion that was already, in part, about his repeated problems with incivility. In the discussion that ensued there is nothing that I see to justify your unblock summary saying "it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA". I see no one who has claimed that that insult, clearly directed at a particular editor, was not in fact a personal attack per the terms of policy. Some people did say he should be given a pass because he's a good content contributor, etc. but I don't see anyone claiming that wasn't a personal attack. Your unblock was mistaken and I hope you will reverse it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• If I might add my voice, I believe the people above me (including Jimbo) are wrong, and appear to be quite seriously ignorant of the passive-aggressive incivility that Eric has been subjected to by a significant number of people in these latest exchanges - he was accused of sexist abuse which he was utterly innocent of (and if Jimbo can't see that, then my respect for him is diminished), and it all spiraled from there. I strongly support your unblock, Panda, and I would urge you not to give in to dictatorship. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• No doubt that Eric has been on the receiving end of personal attacks including passive aggressiveness, but that in no way excuses his own personal attacks. It just doesn't work that way. Also, to refer to anything here as a "dictatorship" is hyperbolic and completely undermines any valid points you might have.- MrX 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The validity of my opinion is not for you to dictate — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

^FWIW I'd call Eric's comment an exasperated and glib comment and pretty well leave it at that. Glad someone unblocked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - Eric was being dragged through the mud with accusations of sexism that he was entirely innocent of (and I don't care if Churchill would not, with my grammar, put up) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I also support your unblock. Those who take pleasure in winding Eric up (in this case there was a false allegation that was particularly disgusting) should be blocked, not a long-term editor who has made a single uncivil remark. Jimbo Wales, why are you intervening in this here, but not at AN/I? --John (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Are you implying that this is the first and only example of this editor making an uncivil remark? When you say things like "single uncivil remark", you deliberately ignore the full context in which the original block was made. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  I think he means in the conversation leading up to the comment in question, not "ever". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I also support the unblock of the author of today's featured article. Alan and John worded it well. Not without irony --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Regardless of anything else, the block came six hours after the fact and was thus stale. What precisely does that prevent? It was purely disciplinary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Exactly what Wehwalt said. It was punitive, not preventative. And Jimbo clearly has no clue about this nuance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocks are preventative and deterrent. From the policy: "Blocks should be used to... encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition." I imagine that part of the reason it has little deterrent effect with this user is because the blocks are usually lifted prematurely.- MrX 20:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Or perhaps it's that blocks are handed out completely erroneously. Who knows? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Its a breakdown of language, see User:Monty845/Sanctions against editors are punishment for a breakdown of how we mangled the language leading to endless confusion. Monty₈₄₅ 21:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Eric's enablers win again. Disappointing and terribly sad, but alas, completely expected. Resolute 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, that's bollocks. Eric and I have seen eye to eye not once (probably) yet this is entirely undeserved and a drama-fest based in some kind of overt and odd correctness crusade. Asking if someone was behind a door when brains were being handed out is barely even a joke (sorry Eric) let alone a personal attack. Move on, or are we all now SO SENSITIVE that we can't express exasperation in a reasonably elegant way? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The block should never have been placed in the first place - not that my opinion matters but I applaud DangerousPanda's unblocking. Anyone who has had the privilege of properly working with Eric, which I have, will emphatically tell you he is one of the greatest editors to work with AND does far more for editor retention than he receives credit for. What really amazes me is that most of those who wish to decry him seem incapable of actually producing quality work themselves - which is surely what should be the aim? Also, if the benchmark for blocks is now that (female) editors think they may have been subjected to personal attacks - well, I thought Scottywong was rude/abusive/incivil to me on the 3RR board, so obviously s/he should immediately be blocked as well. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the absolute ironic part of this discussion is that I'm supposedly well-known across the interweb for having one of the strictest interpretation of WP:NPA and for making supposedly atrocious civility-based blocks. I'm most certainly not considered to be a "fan" of Eric, nor he of me ... and I believe my name is in his block log at least once prior to this. Nevertheless, this unblock is based on NOTHING related to my personal disdain for incivility - it's based on consensus on the discussion, and nothing else. So, put your emotions and past dealings with the editor in question away, and think to yourself "if the asshole who blocks people for civility issues actually unblocked in this case...what the hell am I missing?" With the risk of sounding sexist, put that in your proverbial pipe and smoke it the panda ₯’ 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Appalling. Bwilkins, have you not learned anything from your previous mistakes? Why are you so eager to repeat them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you assumed there was consensus, but there was no consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've realized your opinion already - no need to re-state it the panda ₯’ 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to unblock. The unblock was invalid, and an abuse of the tools. And yes, you do sound sexist as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No way is that sexist. --John (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• I 100% agree with the unblock, Everyone above's said what I wanted to say. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

"No consensus to keep him blocked"

Just a quick note: While it is my opinion that the recent civility block on Eric Corbett was unnecessary (but not inappropriate), I'd like to comment on Panda's closing statement here. Panda, you say that "there was no consensus to keep him blocked." Perhaps I'm just being overly semantic, but since when do blocks require consensus in order to remain in effect? In general, blocks remain in effect unless there is a consensus to overturn them. It's a subtle distinction, but "no consensus to keep him blocked" is different than "consensus to overturn the block". That's as if you closed an AfD that had not come to a consensus as "no consensus to keep, so I'm going to delete it". If there is no consensus one way or the other, the block should remain, or the discussion should continue until there is a clear consensus. I could be wrong, but this is my opinion. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 01:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is how I see it. The policies and guidelines allow admins to make blocks without consensus in areas such as edit warring, personal attacks, vanadlism etc... Once this block is made the blocking policy/admin guide make it clear that you need the agreement of the blocking admin or a clear consensus to reverse that block.

When an admin breaks that rule the tend to get their way because if the block is placed back by another admin it becomes wheel warring. Failing to get consensus for an unblock does not get an admin in much trouble, wheel warring does. It works a bit like a loophole. Chillum 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:RAAA requires an action be discussed, but does not require there be a consensus to reverse it. Monty₈₄₅ 02:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I"ve heard that called the second mover advantage.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

From the WP:Blocking policy:

Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

If you are going to use the block/unblock tool then this is the policy you need to know. Chillum 02:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recommend is not a hard and fast rule. It doesn't say you must, but that it is probably a good idea. If we want it to be a strict requirement, then we can always just say that. Now granted, if someone is regularly ignoring policy recommendations, they are probably going to run in to trouble, but again not a hard rule. Monty₈₄₅ 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

My point was that nowhere in the blocking policy does it say anything along the lines of "A discussion must be had, and if there is no consensus to keep the user blocked, they must be unblocked." This seems to be how Panda explained his reasoning when he closed the discussion above. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 02:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's in the consensus policy, under the "no consensus" heading: "Some discussions result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context: ... When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted". So if a block is contested and there is found to be no consensus for a block, the user is unblocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom went further:

In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. [14] Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

Because your name was mentioned, I am notifying you of a current discussion at the 3RR Noticeboard that might be of interest to you (see here:[15]) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, DangerousPanda! You're receiving the Invisible Barnstar because you reviewed 76 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive in June 2014! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! (t) Josve05a (c) 23:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgot Password

My username is LoverBoyInGarden . I don't remember my password. And i haven't registered email. If I create another account it will be considered sockpuppet--117.233.56.75 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately if you didn't register an email and you don't recall your password there's no way to re-gain access to your account. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Given that User:LoverBoyInGarden has made only 4 edits, and they were several months ago, there should be no problem with just creating a new account and forgetting about the old one. Having multiple accounts is only impermissible if your abusing them in some way. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT. If you want to be safe, you could make a note on your new userpage identifying your previous account, but with only 4 edits to the old one, that isn't even necessary. Monty₈₄₅ 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather

Could I intrigue you into taking a look at this and tell me if it qualifies as an example of meat puppetry or not? I don't want to make such an accusation unless it qualifies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_that_Sue_Rangell_be_prohibited_from_editing_Spitzer_material Thank you in advance. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions

To quote Admiral Ackbar: "it's a trap!" After all, my belief that policy-based arguments typically take precedence is well-known

Question  Do you agree that viewpoints that are not based on policy should have the weight of the argument reduced?  By your words in the closing on this page, you recognize the presence of incivility enabling on Wikipedia...did your analysis of consensus remove the non-policy based influence of incivility enabling?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Question  Your unblock reads, "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA".  Should a decision that has the potential to disrupt Wikipedia be made to a higher standard than "appears"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Question  Your unblock in the block log reads, "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA", with similar comments at [16].  In both edits you opine that the edit summary was uncivil.  The block states, "Personal attacks or harassment: Blatant personal attack in edit summary, and incivility in the substantive comment".  Here BHG partially blocks for incivility.  WP:CIVIL is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.  How do you explain agreeing that there was a policy violation for incivility and also overturning the block?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC) I have to imagine we'll need to get that effigy of Panda going on now, considering that the staunch, needful crowd won't get a response for some 5 days. Tutelary (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Let me don my Panda outfit for a moment: a 72-hour block for a very verbose "you're not smart" is too much. A warning could have sufficed. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and not every uncivil comment should be met with a block. OK, done--that itches. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Of course, that's not what was said. All of the previous warnings and shortened blocks obviously have not prevented the multitude of personal attacks and incivility that came later, so the notion that a warning could have sufficed seems unlikely. What is more likely is that if BHG had not posted to ANI, and the block was allowed to stand, Eric would have realized that his incivility has consequences that affect his ability to enjoy editing.- MrX 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC) I can't speak for Eric anymore than you can speak for the supposed droves of editors who left the project because of him. I think that if you were in his high-profile position (which he has not, as far as I know him, sought himself) you'd understand him a bit better. You may be called "MrX", but Eric has a real X on his back. Mind you, and I'm explaining since everyone seems to read everyone else incorrectly, I am not saying that that was the cause of his block: I'll give BrownHairedGirl much more credit than that. But the resulting shit storm, and the claims of corruption and cronyism and enabling, well, no situation involving "regular" editors would erupt like that. I got blocked one time (for incivility, I suppose), and then unblocked (fortunately), and I never even made it to Jimbo's talk page. No charges of cronyism etc. were leveled at the unblocking admin, as far as I know. Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with Eric's words (outside of article space), but sheesh, does the whole f***ing project have to explode over this? Is "dumb" (or, really, "not smart") really the worst insult you've ever heard here? Worse incivilities have gone unpunished, and still go unpunished. If BrownHairedGirl hadn't posted to ANI, someone would most likely have unblocked anyway, someone who places the civility goal post farther away. Someone like me. And I really would not have enjoyed that, since I respect BrownHairedGirl--so I'm glad this Panda is bearing the brunt of it, and I can sit on the sideline. Except that with ANI, all these talk pages, BN, and Jimbo's talk page, there don't seem to be sidelines anymore. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Have to say, I have enormous respect for Panda for the way he has dealt with this - it was always going to end up shitty, but I think that, thanks to him, it has turned out a bit less brown and smelly than it might have. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC) @Drmies: Those are all reasonable points, even if I don't agree with some of them. I apologize for stating that there are admin enablers. What I should have said is that civility enforcement of vested contributors is controversial, and tends to polarize the community and results in significant disruption. Some admins, often the same admins involved in previous Eric Corbett issues, sometimes use their unblock button outside of the intent of policy, or in disregard of a lack of consensus to so. Eric and a few other editors have a history of calling people stupid in a colorful variety of forms. Do I care if it's directed at me? Not one bit. But many users view it as unacceptable and damaging to the project. Each time it's excused, it sets the bar lower for how we should interact and collaborate to build the encyclopedia. Civility declines, editors leave, and the project fails to achieve its full potential. On reflection, I think a possible solution would be an elected committee of civility arbitrators, with a streamlined process of deciding if policies has been violated and what sanctions should be applied. Of course that's unlikely to happen unless its imposed by the WMF. <shrug> - MrX 17:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Hmm. What if I run for that board? Would you vote for me? Anyway, thanks. Disagreement is great, but we owe it to ourselves to bring light, not heat. See, I don't really see civility as declining: it's an age-old complaint. Anyway, thanks for your response. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) I have no respect for Panda at all. Eric did not ask to be unblocked! There was no emergency. It was a thoughtless, sexist, knee-jerk, over-reaction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Wow, a sexist unblock! First time for everything. Also, no one got blocked for being a sexist. I think your comment is a bit of an...overreaction. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Questions: Where are you going now, D-P? Where will you be tomorrow? Will you bring me happiness? Will you bring me sorrow? All the questions of a thousand dreams: what you do and what you seem? Panda, can you talk to me? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC) WK, you are WAY too young for that song--FOUR ways too young. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Well, it was either that or The Moody Blues, but I like CSNY much better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Heh, I've seen both in concert! Either will do! Montanabw(talk) 08:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Okay, I'm going back to listening to Taylor Swift now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) New timestamp.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Life has enough drama. Wikipedia has enough drama. Hopefully the event that spawned this discussion has calmed down and some degree of rationality has kicked in the panda ₯’ 08:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Anamika Mishra wikipedia page

Anamika Mishra wikipedia page is protected from recreation. Previously there was notability issue and lack of good sources due to which the page was deleted.Here is a good source from sakaal times newspaper http://www.sakaaltimes.com/Tiny.aspx?K=a1SMD of latest interview of Anamika Mishra and her best selling novel Too Hard To Handle. As Sakaal Times is a prominent English daily newspaper. The recent interview published clearly resolves the issue of real people significance and notability.

Here are the reference links of her other facebook and twitter fan pages which also proves that she is a well known and famous author from India. www.facebook.com/anamika.mishraa www.twitter.com/anamikawrites

Therefore i request you to undelete and reinstate Anamika Mishra Wikipedia Page. Thanks.

1.38.17.205 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That sad little interview does nothing of the sort. If you wish to work on an draft, feel free, but "sources" like the above hurt, more than help the panda ₯’ 08:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

````

Undeletion request for Anamika Mishra wikipedia page

here i am sending you some more valuable links please consider them if possible [[Hindustan Times]] interview dated 23/aug/2014 - http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx Hindustan Times too hard to handle book review dated 24/aug/2013 - http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx Millenium Post newspaper interview dated 29/dec/2013 - http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=48011 Desert Trail newspaper too hard to handle book review dated 01/feb/2014 - http://www.readwhere.com/read/224021/The-Desert-Trail/The-Desert-Trail-1st-feb-2014#page/4/2

and many bloggers also have published her interview twitter - http://www.twitter.com/anamikawrites , 33.1 k followers facebook fan page - https://www.facebook.com/anamika.mishraa , 12931 likes website - http://www.anamikamishra.com facebook novel fanpage - https://www.facebook.com/NovelTooHardToHandle , 3588

Therefore I again request you to undelete and reinstate Anamika Mishra Wikipedia Page. Thanks

your 3 questions

Dear Dangerous Panda,

congratulations on your brilliantly chosen user name.

To answer your questions:

Yes, I do understand the difference between WikiPedia and a business directory. Yes, I do understand the concept of "conflict of interest". I picked the original username to make that obvious. Yes, I do understand notable. And as one of the few notable hotels in the area, and to improve the quite empty category "Hotels in Andalucia" I wrote the article.

To give you a bit of your own medicine:

Do you understand "moderation"? Do yu know how to encourage authors? Are you aware that all your badges are like boy scout medals, for child play?

LO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.5.42 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a better question: do you understand WP:EVADE? the panda ₯’ 17:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-answers to the 3 questions about the "consensus" to unblock in four hours

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.

---

Trap or not, rational or not, the question is, are you going to revert your unblock?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be punitive - after all, the block would have expired long before now. If I re-blocked right now, I'd be in more shit than any human on the face of Wikipedia. You of all people have argued against punitive action in the past, so I expect that this is a rhetorical question at this point. However, after what I've just been through in R/L, I have no desire for rhetoric at the moment. We can talk all philosophical later. Cheers the panda ₯’ 10:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you review WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision; with particular attention to "John's unblock", "John admonished", and "Thumperward's participation in discussing his actions".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. None of the sections you point to are related whatsoever. Unless, of course, this is some sort of threat - and I don't respond well to those. Prioer to my departure for Rumania, I EXTENSIVELY discussed my participation, my reasoning, etc. All discussions that I was a part of were appropriately ended and closed before I left. There was, at least related to my part, nothing more for me to participate in. What happened after I left might be different, but I've not been aware of such additional discussions - other than the one above you started that included questions that had already been answered dozens of times - which, by the way, is annoying as hell. I'm expected to respond to questions on my admin actions - ONCE, not a dozen times, thank you. You're simply shooting the messenger now, and the message was "I ABHOR INCIVILITY, AND THE COMMUNITY HAS NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT TO DO ABOUT INCIVILITY. EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT CIVILITY GETS SIDETRACKED. UNTIL SOMEONE SOMEWHERE DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT, EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECIFIC AND INDIVIDUAL CIVILITY BLOCKS WILL BE DECISIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE." the panda ₯’ 16:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it is annoying - and that stick was dropped quite some time ago Unscintillating. Dusti<sup>*Let's talk!*</sup> 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that I have read your comment, Dusti.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• [comment moved below] Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

He's stated that he's done answering these questions as the issue is done and over. Move on, please. Dusti<sup>*Let's talk!*</sup> 19:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that I have read your comment, Dusti.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Panda, I was not assuming that I would make any further response here.  However, you've opened at least one door.  You now say that you've answered my initial questions more than once.  Where are these answers?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Check my contributions. All of them. the panda ₯’ 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Vident Financial page

Re: notability. As is noted in the entry, IBD called VIDI "by far the most successful ETF launch this year," and the CEO was invited to ring the NASDAQ's closing bell. But more relevant is that there have been numerous articles about the launch of this fund (I've cited several) focused around the fund's criteria for investment, which is fundamentally different from others in the field (ditto for the ownership structure).

I'm perfectly happy to cite even more articles to establish this, but it'd be nice to get some guidance on how many are necessary, rather than add one or two more, wait, and then find out that apparently it still doesn't satisfy the criteria. Especially when one reviewer tells me it's just about acceptable, and another says it has "zero importance." TWTCommish (talk)TWTCommish

Not really sure what this is about, or what needs to be followed up on the panda ₯’ 17:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This is in reference to the "Vident Financial" draft, which you rejected, leaving the following comment: "Existence does not equal notability, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable subjects, not a business directory. This is just yet another Financial org with zero importance - which makes this a mere advertisement." If the citation mentioned above (and the one I've added in my resubmission) don't establish notability, I'm at a loss for what would. TWTCommish (talk)TWTCommish — Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You're supposed to at least link to the draft, article, discussion ... I could have quite easily seen my own words. Instead I had to go digging - I could have answered waaay sooner. Here's a few hints: the company mission statement you have in the first section most certainly doesn't belong: it turns it into WP:PROMO. The second paragraph of your second section is companyspeak for "aren't we awesome" - doesn't belong. One of your "references" actually links to the company website. There's an awful lot of fluff, and not a lot of information - you've got hundreds of more useful, encyclopedic words to write before it's even an acceptable stub the panda ₯’ 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Replying in order: the "company mission statement" is from an article about the company, and is far plainer than a number of other pages about other companies in the same industry. Examples available on request. The second paragraph in the second section was absent from initial drafts, and specifically added because editors demanded we establish notability--which that reference does. I'd be curious as to how a company can establish notability without referencing something positive, unless only infamous companies are notable? And the only reference that links to the company site is the one that describes the business structure, which is unique, and which it does in completely non-qualitative terms. TWTCommish (talk)TWTCommish — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given you suggestions on how to move forward, edit the draft, and possibly resubmit. I'm obviously not going to do it for you :-) See WP:FIRSTARTICLE, and whatever you do, don't compare to other companies from the same industry. Also, when you say "we" I get concerned - I hope you don't work for the company, or have any similar such relationship. the panda ₯’ 00:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RTFM

Dear DangerousPanda, I want to make an article about a brasilian samba dancer Andrea de Andrade. The text I will write myself. Now for the picture. If I ask to Andrea to give 'me some picture to mail, and I took them and put on article is OK? Is any copyright conflicts? This pictures was taken by his friends, they are not from the magazines or websites. This picture was posted by Andrea on his Instagram account. Can I take 'it and put it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia? With her approbation, of course? Thanks very much.Leedskalnin (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I already answered all of these questions. I provided you information on drafting an article - see WP:AFC. The person CANNOT email the photo to you if they hold the copyright - that person must release it to Wikipedia by themselves, see WP:IUP. Don't even THINK about adding images until you have successfully drafted an article that is acceptable to Wikipedia - that could take weeks the panda ₯’ 09:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Page move

I'm sorry for splitting the page history on a page, but since I can't move the page Wonder Pets yet to Wonder Pets!, could you please do so? Thanks. Momsandy (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I consider that somewhat controversial as we typically don't include punctuation in a title. You'd therefore have to use the WP:RM process, which I'll argue against the panda ₯’ 21:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Disregard of consensus and WP:UNINVOLVED

Since you were the closing administrator, I thought I would inform you that Bbb23 has topic banned Memills unilaterally in spite of you closing the earlier topic ban closure as unsuccessful. He has done this even though he !voted in that original discussion is therefore involved. Original discussion link; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive263#Proposed_indefinite_topic_ban_for_User:Memills_from_issues_related_to_men.27s_rights.2C_broadly_construed

I will be taking to the noticeboards should he not respond/continue with his unilateral tban action. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Panda, Tutelary has "invited" me twice now to revoke my ban or, as here, threatened to take it on high. The main reason I haven't responded is because I have such a busy social calendar, I'm just not sure if I'm free. I also insist on knowing what's going to be served before I accept invitations, and although she hasn't been specific, it doesn't sound appetizing. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The indefinite topic ban is based on a recent set of edits that were not discussed in the ANI discussion mentioned by Tutelary. Today's topic ban is completely unrelated to that discussion. If I'm understanding Tutelary correctly then he is saying that Memills' can never be topic banned (no matter what he does) because a previous discussion about topic banning the user was closed by DangerousPanda as no consensus. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, he can be, but it must be done at WP:AN like last time, and one administrator can't topic ban or override community consensus not to ensure a topic ban against a user. If the community has a discussion about whether a certain user should be blocked, and it turns out to be 'no block' and then an admin blocks that user anyways for the conduct discussed at the original discussion, that's overriding community consensus. This is even more nasty because Bbb23 voted in the topic ban discussion, and cannot for all circumstances be considered uninvolved. Tutelary (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong on all points. First, the topic ban at AN was proposed by Kevin Gorman. He proposed it because he felt he was involved and couldn't unilaterally ban Memills. However, the probation sanctions permit any uninvolved administrator to ban any editor without going to AN. Second, I am not involved simply because I voted on the last one. If that were so, I would be involved for having previously sanctioned Memills pursuant to the probation sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"admin blocks that user anyways for the conduct discussed at the original discussion" – Memills' conduct that got him topic banned today was not discussed "at the original discussion". Moreover, the closing admin specifically advised Memills to take a break from men's rights related pages and not continue his disruptive editing. But Memills' did continue to edit men's rights related pages (almost exclusively). And he did so disruptively. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a topic ban mostly unrelated to the first AN discussion, and one well within the realm of administrator discretion. Having !voted on a previous discussion does not make one involved. I'm not sure what the issue is here ... hopefully the comments above have clarified things? the panda ₯’ 21:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what I'll do for now, but if I do you'll all get a notification. Tutelary (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)