User talk:DangerousPanda

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations

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

UTRS Account Request

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

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)

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)

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)

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)