Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:04, 17 May 2013

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Re: Head up

User NaymanNoland

Hi. You reviewed and declined a block review request by this editor. As I've just explained to the blocking administrator (Toddst1), I am not convinced this was a good block based on edit-warring, nor am I convinced that it was warranted for personal attacks as you state in your rationale for declining the block review. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith, albeit with some intemperate language, in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Misplaced Pages by Amanda Filipacchi. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, Sondra Peterson. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. Moreover, it was Qworty who used genuinely extreme language in his talkpage posts concerning, among others, a BLP subject (some of these posts have since been removed at SlimVirgin's request), which is the backdrop against which NaymanNoland's comments must be read. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comments would still be welcome, but this has been addressed by the blocking admin, so it's not urgent. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The guy doesn't help himself at all, does he. "...even in your faux amicable form..." is just getting his last digs in on someone when he's just told them they're not allowed to defend themself. Not very civil whatsoever. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that in context, that was unnecessarily confrontational. My hope is that these two editors will not cross paths again for a long time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• <sulk> ... NYB never talks to me ... :( .. — Ched :  ?  21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ched. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good cop, bad cop

It was kinda different seeing you being the "give the guy a break", and me being the "these are the rules" type of thing. I always thought that any time you and I ended up in the same thread that we worked well together. I always got this impression where I was way to "AGF" and you were "These are the rules" type of thing, and that in the middle we found the right things. meh ... just rambling ... take care. — Ched :  ?  21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Carolinas, Clemson University, and User ban

I was reading wikipedia articles tonight while sandboxing some sections in Word. I noticed that a ban was placed on User:GarnetAndBlack pertaining to college / university pages, namely Clemson University in South Carolina. After reading several page histories, I am suprised this hadn't happened sooner, given the amount of deleted and suppressed content I found through edit-warring and puppetry. I couldn't find any positive edits made by this user involving content. I have been reviewing some of the pages, and am in the process of compiling and re-editing some of the content that was removed, and would like to re-write and add some historical content to the articles. Would you be willing to take a look at some of it (also saw Prodego on the admin board); it may take some time for me to get it all done. Thanks. W.T.Diane (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm smelling sockpuppet all over this "new" editor to Misplaced Pages. First day here and you're already an expert on my posting history and canvassing editors in some sort of campaign against me? Not an auspicious beginning. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So, file your WP:SPI or else accusations like that are considered uncivil/personal attacks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For this message...very nicely said.... TheStrikeΣagle 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ... I was afraid you hadn't seen that based on your original response. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As I told...I couldn't guess the double meaning in it....was little hesitant..never mind.. Strike Σagle 13:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

AN mispost

Should I move the section to ANI? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I think you should go talk it out somewhere - if admins need to get involved, we will (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit credits

If I had an old account, but stopped using it because I had a history of problems with a disruptive user, can I merge my good edit history in with a new account? Point me toward the right persons? I didn't know what kind of administrator to ask that question to. 98.94.197.108 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they cannot be merged (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

PERM/C

Hello Bwilkins; Just a FYI (I think), Am I looking at something else ? according to that page User:TA Kosice is not autoconfirmed. My apologies if I'm incorrect :P Mlpearc (powwow) 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:DanielTom

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.

As a point of information, I thought DanielTom's comments were profoundly honest. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Which part? I haven't seen an ounce on honesty or ethics in anything he's written. His rather bizarre last screed on his talkpage is also one he seems to expect me to reply to, although he's forbidden me to respond there, so it's probably one of the worst pieces of ethical conduct I've seen - he'll simply leave it there, and consider my lack of reply as "telling" - that's the way of the weak. However, if you want to point out somewhere that he's actually been honest (diffs would be nice) or even remotely ethical, I'd love to see it (and I do mean that) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well with due diligence you would have realized that DanielTom is a "she". It's always a good idea to extend some diligence and respect towards someone before you start to de-construct them. Secondly, DanielTom asked you to "stop harassing... and go away". I don't see any indication in her final comment that she will not engage with you if you in turn engage her with some respect. Otherwise, why would she continued to query your stance towards her. She has merely asked that you don't harass or bully her. Surely you can see that is an invitation for you to reconsider. There is, or should be, an onus on admins to be exemplary in the manner in which they extend good faith, and I urge you to do so in this context. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of my interactions with them - the warning for embedding snarky and insulting text in a post at AN was the original sole extent of my direct interactions with them - until, of course, they made a snarky reply to my comment at an RFA, and inserted themselves (wrongly) into a few ongoing situations where they either wholly misread my comments, or purposely twisted them. I simply requested them to stop. At no point have I ever harrassed them, nor have I ever attempted to do so - you know as well as I do that harrassment is NOT my style of interaction. I have done nothing but valid, policy-based, respectful and polite interactions with them - period. I'm sure if you have reviewed things properly you will have noticed these things (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this the offending embedded text you are referring to? --Epipelagic (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. Nobody denied it was inappropriate - one person suggested that it was perhaps not-blockable, but in the overall concept of "disruption" it was borderline. However, as DT's actions on that AN had been borderline disruptive, that action was the proverbial straw on the camel's back. By itself it would not, of course, been blockable.

It's clear that DT has now stooped so low as to attack my profession (it's well-known AND "advertised" on my userpage that I work for a newspaper - his "Penny Press" comment is therefore an attack). You cannot get much lower - although perhaps their next step will be to insult my family or ethnicity. Nice way to try and resolve issues by actually making ad hominem attacks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The only people who commented on your abusive threat did say it was inappropriate. Ridiculous warning Amazing display of abusiveness and vacant argument designed to intimidate, from Admin Bwilkins... No, I had no idea you worked for a newspaper. For your information, not everyone is that interested in you, and not everyone you abuse will actually bother to read your User page (I certainly haven't). ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're taking "opinion" as "truth"? Bad idea. However, now that you've made your level of wisdom and maturity clear, I will remind you that I asked you to stay off this talkpage. You are missing a clue, and your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Epipelagic, but it's best to let it go. (I am a "he", by the way... sorry for the disappointment...) As to you, BWilkins, I did tell you to go away, because I believe you behave like a deliberate troll every time you post at my Talk page, but that doesn't mean you can't write there anymore. I have never "forbidden" you to respond there. You see, even when people make baseless accusations against me, which has become rather commonplace, you will note that I never delete any such posts nor revert them. Now you accuse me of being "dishonest" and "unethical"... All I can say is that I do the best I can (e.g., I am vegan, I volunteer, donate my allowances to UNICEF, etc.), but you are certainly welcome to judge me. Happiness to you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the words "go away" mean one thing: "go away" - so when you said that, it was clear. I'm not going to push your ridiculous envelope, especially now that your ethics have stooped to ad hominem attacks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As you keep bringing up my "ethics", I will let others decide who is making ad hominem attacks ... ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I just have to comment as I see Epipelagic saying that DanielTom's "comments were honest". In my experience, DanielTom is one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Misplaced Pages, and it is people like DanielTom who turn good users away from has made some problematic comments on Misplaced Pages. The first time I came across DanielTom, it was when he awarded a barnstar to another user who was encouraging sockpuppetry. This is not a personal attack, I should add, as the statement that DanielTom is a dishonest person isn't a personal opinion, it's an easily documented fact found in the writings of DanielTom. If you go around misrepresenting facts, well, then you are dishonest and there's nothing wrong in others saying so. If DanielTom wants to put an end to what he calles "ad hominem attacks", he should perhaps start by considering his own behavior on Misplaced Pages?Jeppiz (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Which facts did I misrepresent? And why do you call me "one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Misplaced Pages" just for having awarded a barnstar to someone with whom you disagree? Good heavens! ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban

Hi. Though it may seem to you that I should be experienced enough to have understood the nature of a topic ban, having never been involved in any administrative actions whatsoever, there is no logical reason that I would be. I have never had any sort of sanctions imposed on my account. I have never edited articles which admins have ever had to look at for any reason, until about a month ago. I have not actually run into an admin on wikipedia until about a month ago (don't quote me on that). I've managed to exist off in my own corner of wikipedia editing, mostly, obscure articles on italian landmarks, classical musicians, organic chemistry, and food-related articles. Do you really think that someone who understood how a topic ban worked would have demonstrated one wasn't in effect by making a minor edit to a page? Who, logically, would edit a page knowing full well that they are banned and that there is a swarm of admins now looking at their ban?

The more plausible part is: Sonicyouth has been following me around and harassing me. He has not so far accepted any apology or attempt to reconcile. That is his fault. I don't know what to do about that. I have made plenty of efforts to do so, but he continues to slap me in the face, and I frankly don't care if he doesn't like me. He contributed to an argument by repeating the same tired claims over and over again. He continues to butt in on EVERYTHING to add his little quips and opinions about me. That guy, basically, started an argument with me on ridiculous pretenses (false, I should add), and then took everything I said to be an insult (way to AGF), and then pushed as hard as he could not to RESOLVE the issue, but to get me topic banned, and now he clearly would like me permabanned. Now why might I assume I wasn't banned? Because in one place, I was told I had a 30 day ban, in another 6 months, and on top of that the page was still editable. Considering the admin spent a whole minute getting to the bottom of who was attacking who, and since I left him a note on his page about it, I was under the assumption he had reviewed his action and removed the ban. How would I know if I didn't know how to find the ban logs? How would I know if I was still banned? Keep in mind that every single other sphere of the internet, a ban is a technical block against manipulating content. Is wikipedia trying to be deliberately confusing? Rgambord (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You were provided links to that difference between a WP:BAN, a WP:TOPICBAN and a WP:BLOCK long ago - a block is the only technical remedy, and it would have applied against the entire Misplaced Pages. Since you apparently typically edit "obscure topics", if you were wise, you would voluntarily stay away from the "bad" topics and go back to those obscure things for at least a month (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Glasshole

Would you mind taking a look at Glasshole and the fiasco over at Talk:Google_Glass#Google_Glass.23Inappropriate_use please? Two admins who are probably now involved (I sure am) have been trying to get the result of the AFD implemented. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deletion Question

Hi Bwilkins,

The Laser Bond Inspection page has recently been deleted. http://www.lsptechnologies.com/ Does contain the same information, however the information is considered public domain. I am not sure how to proceed with the page creation. Does lsptechnologies have to 'donate' the information for it to be listed on wikipedia? I am an employee at lsptechnologies and was asked to share the information in accordance with wikipedias rules. If you could please assist me in the process of sharing information with wikipedia, or point me to a resource I could read over and learn for my self it would be greatly appreciated. I see the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials how ever the materials are not considered copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzakharevski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're supposed to do it "in accordance with Misplaced Pages's rules", then you'll also have to read WP:COI and WP:PROMO. If your boss asked you to do it, then s/he doesn't understand what Misplaced Pages is about. Now that you're aware that you or anyone from your company cannot create it (nor can you ask someone else to do it, let's look at the other issue: the website clearly states "© 2012 LSP Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved". That's a clear copyright statement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you tell me why you deleted Notable People section ?

Hi Bwilkins, Would you tell me why you deleted Notable People section ? You said that you want to know if "they have Wiki article", what does this mean ?

The ones I added were not spam, I had web references. Are those references not enough ? Plesae advice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.162.210 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The coverage for those individuals was WP:ROUTINE they are not on notable encyclopedic value. Every school has many kids who win local yearly awards. To be included, the subjects should be generally of sufficient notability to qualify for their own wikipedia page. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for answering pretty much exactly what I was going to say :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is just for a school district, people who won at international and national are as notable as they can get, the district may not have a similiar level of winning for yeas to come. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.186.24 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia...If the people are only notable in a district then most certainly don't belong, do they? If they warrant their own articles then they can be listed...this isn't optional. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You're a good man, Sir Wilkins. Go Phightins! 15:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ducktails (band)

You moved this to userspace (User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band)) on 7 May as it wasn't ready to be in mainspace. Since then I have made considerable improvements to the content and the sourcing and it is now ready to return. The original author has indicated that he is happy for to happen (), as is the editor who asked me to look at it. I'm bringing this here as a courtesy rather than just restoring it myself, due to your prior involvement with the article. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree ... and the "sources" are still a little weak, however, feel free to move a rather crappy and non-notable article into mainspace if you think it's at all ready (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TP clearing

Hi Bwilkins. Regarding this comment you made to an IP editor regarding their declined block request, you were incorrect that they were not allowed to remove that content from their own talk page. Actually, the removal of those comments was neither improper nor required for patrolling admins, as you claimed. Please see this discussion on the editor's talk page, which shows my explanation. Sorry for the interference in this matter. I've never crossed paths with that editor and their talk page seems to indicate an ongoing pattern of inappropriate behavior, but I felt it was important to contact you regarding the talk page-clearing guidelines. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been held by the community that an editor may not remove comments related to the block - the blocking admin has a responsibility to be accountable, and explain their block as well. As such, the IP cannot remove the comments related to the block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)