User talk:Darth Panda

SEMI-RETIRED

I am retiring my public face. I will continue to edit with NocturneNoir (talk · contribs). Any questions about warnings or reported vandalism should be directed to this account.

Your opinion

How do you think I would do in a RfA right now? astatine-210 ^{discovered elements, what am I?} 20:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a very cursory glance at your contributions (as I don't have the time right now to fully look at them) and I have a few comments. You seem like the anti-vandal type of user, and those rarely pass unless they're absolutely perfect in their work (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.delanoy 2 for one of the only successful ones in recent memory). That being said, you have absolutely zero article work that I can see of, which is one of the main criteria for adminship these days. In addition, you have only 747 contribs at the time of writing. In general, 3000 is minimum amount of edits (and occasionally 4000). As a vandal reverter, you will need substantially more to prove your worth. Finally, your user account first began editing on January 26, just a few days ago. You need at least six months experience (in the eyes of most RfA voters) to even have a chance of passing. And that's just the basic criteria.

In addition, on your user page, you claim "Hi, i'm astatine-210, who was an old, knowledgeable user who decided to get a fresh start because I had been a victim of bad Wikistalking." If this is true, RfA will force you to reveal your old name (unfortunately) and I'm not sure you'd really wish to do that.

In the words of a good friend of mine, "Anybody who asks 'How will I do at RfA now?' will generally fail." I'd advise waiting at least another five months with solid antivandalism and article work, and you'll have a shot. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The most recent one I can remember is this one. But thanks. ;) astatine-210 ^{discovered elements, what am I?} 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but he hasn't passed yet. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it looks good. I have a few article contribs, and created an article, but I cant have too many because I can't think of anything to add. astatine-210 ^{discovered elements, what am I?} 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure what you mean. 10/20/2 at 33% does not look good at all, considering it has little chance of passing. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Talkback}}

You can drop all the TB's you want on my page. It helps me and I'll put them in a colappse box. astatine-210 ^{discovered elements, what am I?} 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Michigan State University College of Engineering

I edited Michigan State University College of Engineering to make it less promotional. It should be okay now. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks far better now. I almost felt bad for tagging it; I knew it could be improved, but in the state it was in, the bottom paragraph was so blatantly spam... Apparently I'm being a bit too strict with my G11s, eh? DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bitesize

Hello

I amended this part of the page , which you have reverted. I probably did not make it clear why i made the change.

On the site it says:-

"With such a simple system, there are not many areas to fault, however, the website does have flaws, that have been pointed out on numerous websites. For example, the Computing Studies section has been criticised for being out of date. Similarly, it has been argued that the crass use of irritating kitcsh piranhas is patronizing and unaesthetically appealing."

It uses this sites as a reference http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/06/bitesize_gcse/

But this site only criticises ICT and makes no reference to "irritating kitcsh piranhas". I think this might be one persons point of view. But as i work for the BBC i thought it best just make it clear that the second criticism had no references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.122 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

An edit from an IP mentioning "piranhas" generally looks like vandalism. In any case, I've undone my revert and struck your warning. You might want to cite the source you mentioned above so it does not look as much like vandalism next time. Sorry about that! DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanked pages

Don't forget to use: {{db-blanked}}, for instance at Craig edwards, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the revision history, the page was originally tagged with an A7. However, the proper tag for the page would have been a G10. That being said, I was huggling quickly and did not check the creator of the page. A revert (which I did) was all I could have managed. You might want to pop a note to the original CSD tagger instead. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

heh, no problem, I thought after posting you this you were probably just patroling the recent changes and so wouldnt have relised, thanks, best wishes Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Blankfort

Thx. Is it ok now ? Al Maghi (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

I still question the notability of the subject, but I don't suppose it can be speedied under A7 now. Tag removed. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

SOSLynx and Speedy Deletion

Hey, see the talk page of the article. Thx... Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, re: Vandalism reverts

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You're too fast for me! On behalf of all Wikipedia users, thank you for your contributions to help prevent vandalism! Ericdn (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I always give credit where credit is due. Thank you, too, for your help! --Ericdn (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)