User talk:DangerousPanda

Your challenge is to read and make one valid/needed edit to this article. Click here if you accept the challenge.

Bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

MfD

You're welcome! Happens to all of us now and then. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Carrt81's AN/I

I've known you in the past to be a resonable person. Your threats on the AN/I and calling me a dick raises concern. I have responded there. Would you mind clarifying. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bwilkins, I understand and placed a question at the bottom of the page if the AN/I is over, with a little levity as to returning to normalcy or abnormalcy depending on one's own preference. I hate to assume anything thing so just a blunt yes or no will do. Thanks again! Hope you don't have to deal with me until the next time! LOL!!!--Victor9876 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blockheaded

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for excessive use of terrible puns, [1]. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jac16888^Talk 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

_{only joking--Jac16888^Talk 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)}

• Endorse This language is totally unacceptable. Other languages that are unacceptable include French, Esperanto, and Visual Basic. Verbal chat 12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Am I allowed to endorse my own fake block? (Yes, I admit that I out-Bugs'd Bugs on that one) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lilliputian hallucination

Not actually a hoax - see for instance this, this, or indeed this. I've made it into a redir to the last one of those. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 20:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...the little search I did made it sound like something that happens after a few too many adult beverages :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

#REDIRECT Beer goggles :-) Tonywalton ^Talk

Actually, I was thinking more of seeing leprechans everywhere after too many pints of Guiness LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To be sure. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Granai Incident

Hi, you added two templates to this page. Both left me puzzled. Could you please specify on the articles talk page where you see facts are inaccurate and why the article does not represent a world wide view. I want to fix it. Thanks Iqinn (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Carenage

You reverted my good faith entry on the etymology of the town name. I lived in Carenage (in a house owned by a Dr Pierre on the east hillside at the north end of School Street, if you're Trinidadian) for a year and that's what the residents told me at the time. But I can't prove it -- just as many hearsay place names can't be proven -- so that's why I started my entry with "It is said...". One meaning of the verb "careen" is to beach a ship for repairs, and it's logical that the place one careens a ship would be a "careenage", which would morph into "carenage".

Anyway, I've found a website [2] justifying my entry, so I'm putting it back again with this reference.Irv (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Irv ... the thing with Wikipedia is that anything has to be supported by a valid reliable source. You're right, I reverted is as a good faith edit. Glad you could find something that backed it up! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

discourteous

No. Not you. I thought I had - or i should have - mentioned that I was not naming everyone. In fact, since the only people I thought were total jerks to me were nathan and some other guy, I did not think I had to name everyone else. Moreover, I am pretty sure that earlier in the discussion i single you out by name (username) as someone who didn't agree with me but was courteous.

Please tell me what you want me to do to make things right. I do not want anyone to have the wrong impression of you or my thoughts of you. If you want me to add your name in, I will.

But i had hoped that my written responses to you were always courteous, and consistent with the courtesy you showed me. if you feel I did not treat you properly, I really am sorry. it was not my intention.

let me know what you want me to do, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind it when BWilkins and High King tell me they see no personal attack. True, I thought that they misunderstood my explanation, but I know they were giving their honest opinions.

I came here in good faith and expected a minimal amount of courtesy. Several people here, while disagreeing with my view, did respond to me with courtesy and I appreciate that. Mackan, Luna Santin, Eusibius and others don't find any merit in my original statement, but I appreciate their courtesy, and others whose names I have left out... Some however did not. And yes, that changes my view of the situation. My comments to Nathan were all responses to Nathan. Were his initial comments really in line with the spirit of WQA? If so ... if so, well, that really is pathetic, folks.

And from this you think I have attacked you? Do you want there to be some conflict between us? I really do not see where I accuse you of being discourteous. I don't know why you bring it up. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guys...my friends aren't allowed to fight. Stop. Please. Both of you are among the good guys on this site. Whatever it is, it's not worth fighting about. Guettarda (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, I have no bone to pick with Slrubenstein...in fact, I fully appreciate his clarification above. As it was possible that I was mistaken on how I read his comments on WQA, I offered that he could bring it here ... and he did, and has clarified/expanded them here, and thanks to Slrubenstein for that... All's good :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad! I really would not want anyone to infer a false impression of you from anyhing I wrote! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your observations. After reading the other guy's response, I realize that there had been some hard feelings caused by something I had written in another discussion. Perhaps it was recent, or perhaps it was when I was a bit more of a jerk than I am now. However, I can certainly relate to that. Anyway, thanks. Mandsford (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help! Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi, BW and assorted talk page watchers. Could you please review this exchange and offer any advice on how to proceed? Does it need a WQA, or is it too complicated/routed in content issues. TALK, TE, IDINTHEARTHAT etc, have been explained to this user across a few talk pages, and I'm at a loss how to proceed with someone who refuses to accept an answer while being quite so rude about it. Best, Verbal chat 11:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For pitching in at various forums where users need feedback to resolve disputes and otherwise promote harmonious editing of the project. Thanks for donating your time. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I watch a lot of the forums that you help out in. I don't often contribute because copyright problems eat up most of my Wikipedia time, but I notice. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Very sincerely, thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tett

Hi Bwilkins

Journalist or otherwise, if you haven't heard of Gillian Tett it must be the case that you don't read the FT. She is a prolific contributor to what is undeniably one of the top 5 English language newspapers of record worldwide. For example, even on the non-subscribers' front page, her Global Insight column from yesterday is the first article link (above the navigation ribbon) as I write this.

Bongomatic 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Her existance is not in question in my mind, nor is her role. I have more of concern about the path the article is taking ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, I was following this discussion and did a little research. You might want to look at this link [3] to clarify NOKESS's gender. Also, there may be a conflict of interest with NOKESS's editing of the article Malcolm Nokes when you compare the name on the file upload. Shinerunner (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Content of Malcolm Nokes article seems largely uncontroversial and NOKESS's editing doesn't seem to have added anything startling. Name on file doesn't assert gender - could be her hubby.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just thought that I'd point it out.Shinerunner (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting anyway. And on that note, I'm going to bed.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article talkpage accuses me of belitting 2 the contributions of 2 women. "She" seemed therefore to be obvious. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Template

Yeah, I know about the bda template, I was just too lazy to use it. xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucks95905 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Tea

Thanks :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cab Kaye

Dear Bwilkins
thank you for your corrections in the article on Cab Kaye.
However, I undid one correction, "June 3rd", as this is as it appears on the record cover.
In the next weeks I will add some more translated texts on the same article on Cab Kaye. I hope you find the time and check the spelling and compatibility with Wiki conventions on the new contributions as well.
Thanks in advance
--NorbertvR (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I usually catch those in advance ... my bad! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Hi, thanks for the message. I will not post on various forums. Thanks and best, Wifione (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "I will not post the same incident on more than 1 forum" :-) Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times do you warn the same thing?

Funny, you didn't bother with a talk page warning for Revrant and his continued sarcasm towards anyone who disagreed with him or his general lack of recognition if his own bad faith accusations that led up to my comment. Honestly, I feel you had your mind made up when you started. I could be wrong, but it is my feeling (and not a personal attack, so don't bother taking that route.). Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than acknowledge that your text was an issue (or could have been read wrong), you didn't take any responsibility for your part of the incident. The entire thing should have been closed days ago with only a minor "don't do it again" to everyone. The continued arguing about it by you led to the only possible response. Don't ever suggest I had made up my mind - you say we have actually "ran into each other" before but I have no memory of that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Then why didn't you close it days ago instead of leaving it open so that Revrant could continue sniping? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assist

Thanks for assisting in cleaning up the article on the Cape Coral Police Dept. I haven't had time to go back and fix the refs. I had to expand it on the fly sitting at Books-a-Million when someone was trying to merge it out of existance. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines on when and how to reformat other users contributions on talk pages?

If not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but your statement on Wikiquette alerts seems to imply that I 'brought it down on myself' by wikifying the comment left by the anon editor on the AfD page. I was under the impression that editing a talk page for readability, and fixing up new editors' comments was a proper, and even polite thing to do, as long as content wasn't touched. Am I mistaken? Could you point me at so guidelines for when its proper, and when improper to edit the comments of another user on a talk page? thanks LK (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR is a good place to start. The general rule, however, is to not refactor someone else's comments at all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read it with interest. LK (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read through the page, and I don't believe it applies to my edit. All I did was to add some white space, a '*' and a 'Keep' in front of a new editor's comment, so that his comment (arguing for keep) did not merge with the previous comment arguing for deletion. I don't think that counts as refactoring. Is there anything about what is proper editing behavior when new editors comments are made in such a way that the whole is muddled and hard to read?

The instructions on AfD are generally fairly clear about starting with "Keep" or "Delete". Many users make a comment that are neither officially Keep or Delete, but add commentary to the discussion. Moving that type of comment to a "Keep" is generally not the correct action. Replying to the mssage saying "was this meant to have Keep at the beginning, or just a comment?" was probably best. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow that rule in the future. I think just a '*' in front to identify it as a separate comment is acceptable? LK (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Either :* or :: (or how ever many indents are needed) works - make sure your edit summary says "fixed indent of previous editor" or "fixed previous editor's formatting" or something like that, so that it's clear. Don't combine his/her multiple posts though! Good luck! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the rule I will follow from now on. Thanks! I go fairly often to AfD, and regularly fix up formatting. But I will be more careful from now on. Thanks again, LK (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts‎

Will you kindly remove your closing commentary from the report I filed about Ottava Rima? It gives an inaccurate description of what happened, and seeing that you are not an administrator or clerk on that page as far as I can tell you have no special authority to close or announce the reason for a closure, nor should you be edit warring over your preferred version of closing language.

There are not "issues on both sides". It is a simple case of an editor being uncivil, apparently as a matter of wikigaming, another editor who showed up to defend that on a notice board, and a process to deal with that going nowhere. I know you are not taking his side exactly, but to summarize there are "issues on both sides" is both untrue and an inaccurate reflection of whatever conclusion the discussion may have reached. There is no fault on part of other editors. That one's modus operendi appears to be counter-accusations and mud-slinging at whomever objects to his abusive behavior. To endorse even one bit of it validates and encourages it, and would blunt any future efforts to review his behavior should it continue. I, for example, am pretty close to a neutral party in this. I have no prior issues (as far as I know) with the editor, have no ax to grind, am pretty close to neutral on his Wikipedia content and process position, and was not the main target of his insults on the AfD page where the incident arose. I was simply unwilling to cast a blind eye to what I saw was a process violation. I did what one is supposed to do - considered the various options, gave him a caution, and when he continued reported it to the notice board. For that he lashes out. I can take it - his ongoing insults were rather aimless and off target. The point is, he has to behave, and efforts to deal with misbehavior are not themselves misbehavior. Seeing two sides fighting where a single difficult editor is taking on the rest of the world is the kind of thing that allows it to persist.

You may agree or disagree, but recording your personal opinion on this as the finding of the notice board is unwarranted. If we cannot agree on suitable language, it is best to simply not comment on the closing. I'll count on doing that unless you have an objection, my other option - adding a statement to the closing comment - being messier. I withdrew my report by allowing it to expire, not because there was a finding by the community or administrators but because nothing was going to be done and the matter grew stale.

Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You already know that when you file at any noticeboard, or DR forum, that your own actions will also be brought forward. I'm sure you read the closing summary clearly: OR was advised to keep his eye on his civility, and there were possibly some issues on both sides. It was withdrawn. This clearly summarizes the ENTIRE discussion, and the findings of those of us who maintain WQA, and is the complete truth. You, as the complainant really have no say in the closure summary being added. You should carefully read the comments I made in the WQA filing in your support - and I highly recommend RFC/U if you need to pursue. You're right, however, that WQA was not going to achieve anything overall, as blocks cannot be issued as WQA is not run by admins. None of us who monitor WQA are in this to be in a fight with you, so don't pick one with me. I have been neutrally dealing with issues in WQA for a long time. If you can show me that there is nowhere in the WQA where your own actions may have led to some of the incivility against you, then I will change my closure. However, as it stands, and as per my viewing of a wide range of diff's, a minor "you might have had a very slight part of the overall issue" is not a bad thing - think about it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll respond in a bit more detail when I can take a bit of time to think it through. No fight intended, and your efforts are welcome. I'm just trying to find the best path to keeping peace and order on the encyclopedia. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I say either file the RFC/U, or let the whole incident drop. You've got a pretty clear idea now that if anyone has seen you possibly provoke someone, then they'll be all over you in an RFC. Honestly, I think Ottava went waaaaaay overboard, whether or not you provoked him. But that's me, and he was daring you to file the RFC/RFAR. Complaining about a WQA closure is like peeing yourself in a dark suit - nobody knows but you, and it stops feeling so warm pretty quickly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I just don't understand the nature of WQA reports. I had thought it was the place to go to deal with incivility that continued after an unheeded caution. It was undeniable that incivility was occurring on the AfD page, that a number of community members were unhappy with it, that the offending editor had been cautioned but had reacted with further incivility, and that this had stirred a lot of sometimes heated discussion that was not about the AfD matter at hand. I was hoping we could keep some order so that people could continue to discuss their thoughts on deletion in a productive way without the process grinding to a halt. It should have been a simple matter to report what was going on and see what the community wanted to do about it. Ideally, a neutral administrator would have warned the editor to stop and the editor would have stopped (or if not, been subject to the usual escalating blocks). If not, a fair outcome would be that the community decided there was no incivility, or that the incivility was present but not causing enough trouble to be worth dealing with. That would take all of a few minutes, the editing environment would improve, and the encyclopedia would return to normal. I don't see any room there for retaliatory counter-accusations, or for putting the behavior of the other editors on the page under the microscope. The situation you describe, that my filing a WQA or RFC would attract a swarm of people attacking me, is pernicious and dysfunctional. I've seen that on occasion throughout the encyclopedia, where misbehavior is allowed to persist once an editor learns they can deflect scrutiny for themselves and others they favor by making unfounded accusations of bad faith against anyone who would complain. The "he provoked me" defense is a sub-species of this and, though never really accepted, does cause enough confusion to derail attempts to deal with problems. Most of the editors who did that flamed out eventually and got banned or long-term blocked; some were sockpuppets. There is no point filing an RFC/U on a specific stale incident, and I am neither familiar enough with this editor to know whether this is a more serious present problem, nor self-sacrificing enough to care. But if it turns out to be an ongoing problem someone is going to bring another report up there, or AN/I, ArbCom, etc. When that happens the editor will no doubt point to this report as grist for his accusations against whoever comments there, and will use the "issues on both sides" comment as a way to blame the messenger. If we're going to have civility standards we ought to put our foot down and simply tell people to stop behaving uncivilly, and not get away with it simply because they create a lot of noise and confusion when reported. Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From the opening sentence of WP:WQA: "Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate."

A little further down: "What WQA can do:

• Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies
• Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility
• Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem

What WQA CANNOT do:

• Give or enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures.
• Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents
• Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users".

I am fully supportive of our civility standards - that's why I do so much work at WQA, and from early on I let you know that you were really in the wrong forum, as it was beyond what WQA can deal with. RFC/U is the next step. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and sorry if I messed things up by taking it to the wrong forum. I do think some good came out of hashing it through. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You never messed anything up ... our job is to point you in the right direction. I also agree that hashing it out was a good idea - if you ever do file that RFC/U, you'll be able to point at your attempt to resolve the issues, and also ask a few "supporters" to chime in on that RFC - that's not considered canvassing in this situation. Good luck! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Escalating

As you know, I support escalating complaints where necessary - and I'd have to literally look through every WQA to find where we disagree on more fundamental stuff like that. But, it wasn't just 1 or 2 tiny fundamental things that were missed; the handling of this is/was (potentially) horrible all-around. I trust that my underlying message, both here and there, is received? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it became a little comedy of errors. We block vandals for less. I appreciate the message! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quick and the Connolley

Curious why you reverted my page. Entirely to enforce the action or even partially to keep me from mucking up further.

Thanks, if it's the latter.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were erasing block notices while you were still in fact blocked. You were pissing off the admins, and that was not going to end well...so yes, to stop you from mucking up further. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

asking help

Hello, I am new here, I am not english speaker, so many things become difficult for me... please I ask for your patience, I am still very fool with the codes and things I need to do for post, despite i am trying to read and take information how it works. I don't know how to confirm that there are reliable sources about my contribution. Can you look this video here please?. Really sorry for disturb, I begg for comprehension, I will learn with the time... I still don't know how to add an answer to a discussion :( --Bluesky84 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)MT biographer