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!

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 [1] 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

I can't look at youtube where I am right now ... and whetever you do, do NOT try and use youtube as a reference or an external link. It is NOT a reliable source, and links to possibly-copyrighted video = BAD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

mistake

I think you made a good faith mistake (University Canada West) in giving me an edit-war warning. I was restoring a version that had been ravaged by an ongoing edit after the "edit-warrer" had been blocked for 24hours. I agree that the article does have problems, but said IP was beaching WP:CIVIL, shouting and yelling, and all that. I came to this as uninvolved during Recent Changes Patrol. The way wiki works is to discuss in a civil manner what one's grievances are and then implement changes. Insulting others, as said IP was doing to user Ingoman is not the way to go. As for the page protection you commented on, said IP can get an account. Let me know what you think. Regards Seb az86556 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You completely violated the WP:3RR rule - vandalism is the only reason, and from my viewing of the edits, it was not vandalism, but a content dispute. Take a look at the history - your reversions and re-adding of material (which counts as a revert) was far more than 3x, when taken between both of the IP addresses. If you looked, you'll notice that I gave the IP editor the same warning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did see the warnings for the others. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that :) thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The warning is 100% valid, and you should pay attention - if it happens again, the 3RR noticeboard will be advised. Maybe a read through WP:COI by a few editors over there would be a wise idea as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

An equally "wise idea" would be to would be to read WP:CIVIL. I am uninvolved and have no interest in the page. I am getting the creeps when rude behavior will eventually get someone to win out. That's the wrong lesson the IP has now learned. If there's something to talk about the two should have talked, which the IP was unwilling to do. After having been blocked for 24 horus, said IP reverted again. Is that the way to do it? Come back after you've already been blocked once and then get your way? Just leave it. Let's disagree. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should read WP:CIVIL, you'll know that I'm being more-than civil, and indeed there is nothing in my official, valid warning and the discussion above that would merit even a glance at breaking civility. Indeed, read the above carefully next time - there's messages for everybody. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding. I did not mean you were uncivil. You never were. I was referring to the IP. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged he was being uncivil - however, that is never considered a reason or defence to break WP:3RR, and generally trying to argue so (if you did get blocked for it) merely increases the length of the original block. Reverting actual vandalism is the only defence. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. Merely clarifying that I never attacked you, or at least did not mean to (I can imagine you've been personally attacked quite often, and probably more often than not for no valid reason). Seb az86556 (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When you do a lot of working trying to resolve WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues in WP:WQA, you tend to piss a lot of people off - even when you're merely a neutral 3rd party trying to look at things from a different perspective. So, yes, I get more than my fair share of pounding. No harm, no foul in this case though - thanks for the clarification. :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. So nail this to your wall:

		The Special Barnstar
		For enforcing 3RR without discrimination :) Seb az86556 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was completely unexpected on a Sunday morning. Thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I am an italian friend of user Romandrumanagh (sorry for my english). He requested me to thank you, user:BWilkins, for him. I personally believe he should calm down, get back to en.wiki and ask for an arbitration about Drumanagh. But I understand -reading the comments on 'wikiquette' of user Cavila and user Bretonbanquet (both clearly "celtic")- that it will be 'very very very' difficult to achieve it in an impartial and calm way. Finally, even I find the book of Hughes (British Chronicle) a 'Google book' worth to be included in the bibliography of the voice Drumanagh in the italian wikipedia (and should be even in the en.wiki...), because wikipedia must accept all the points of view and I don't believe 'Google Books' publishes low level books. What strikes me more is the intervention of the admin Kathryn NicDhàna, who seems to be totally on the celtic side, cancelling the posts of my friend asap. Yours. Roberto M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, everybody needs to calm down - including you. Let's assume good faith with the editors and admins alike, and ensure that you not attack people in a nationalistic manner either. Be careful with "friends" when it comes to Wikipedia - our main friends here are WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CIV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinking WQA - what's your opinion?

I'm running out of patience with the IP editor involved in the "Twinking" WQA (WP:Wikiquette alerts#Twinking). It seems that he's either failed to read the policies, failed to understand them, or is deliberately choosing to ignore them in favor of whatever his agenda is, and I'm pretty sure at this point that he's just continuing to troll in WQA by basically saying people who disagree with him are anarchists.

What's your opinion? I'm basically one step away from escalating it to WP:ANI. He has some valid points that deserve discussion with regard to the content dispute, but the way he's going about it is just inflaming people, and that's far beyond the scope of what's reasonable IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)