Revision as of 00:22, 20 May 2013 view sourceSmurfmeister (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,855 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:52, 20 May 2013 view source DangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →TP clearing: brilliantNext edit → | ||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
::The only items related to a block that an editor cannot remove are block notices for a ''currently active'' block and declined unblock requests for a ''currently active'' block. But any comments outside those absolutely may be removed. --] (]) 11:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | ::The only items related to a block that an editor cannot remove are block notices for a ''currently active'' block and declined unblock requests for a ''currently active'' block. But any comments outside those absolutely may be removed. --] (]) 11:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] (]) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | :::Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] (]) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::: I see that went brilliantly for you (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 19:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== A cookie for you! == | == A cookie for you! == |
Revision as of 19:52, 20 May 2013
This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
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)
User:DanielTom
A warning is never abuse, and the editor in question has been unable to get consensus that it was. They also fail to understand the very policies they make wild accusations about me. This is an editor with nothing but an axe to grind, and is quite probably exactly as Jeppiz had suggested - but they can go grind it somewhere else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)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)
- 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)
- Is this the offending embedded text you are referring to? --Epipelagic (talk) 12:11, 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- "It's been held by the community"? Do you have evidence to support that statement? I'm sorry, but WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED are very clear on this matter and I've seen many admins who validate it, such as Orangemike did on IP 68's talk page. In fact, you're the first admin I've ever seen who's opposed it. The list of exceptions on what cannot be removed is limited and specific. If an editor removes a warning, that removal constitutes acknowledgement of its receipt. Again, I realize that IP 68 appears to be causing quite a lot of problems, but it's important that no editor is ever improperly accused of violating any rules. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The only items related to a block that an editor cannot remove are block notices for a currently active block and declined unblock requests for a currently active block. But any comments outside those absolutely may be removed. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see that went brilliantly for you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Being an administrator can be one hell of a job, but you always take out the trash and do right. Now you get a reward for it Enjoy. WorldTraveller101 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) |
My talk page
I think it is best if you stay away from it now. My block has expired, regardless of what either of us think of how it was handled - nothing either of us say now will change that. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)