Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unscintillating (talk | contribs) at 00:44, 8 August 2014 (→Questions: new timestamp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has opted out of talkbacks

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: 1 day

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 ₯’

Vident Financial page

Re: notability. As is noted in the entry, IBD called VIDI "by far the most successful ETF launch this year," and the CEO was invited to ring the NASDAQ's closing bell. But more relevant is that there have been numerous articles about the launch of this fund (I've cited several) focused around the fund's criteria for investment, which is fundamentally different from others in the field (ditto for the ownership structure).

I'm perfectly happy to cite even more articles to establish this, but it'd be nice to get some guidance on how many are necessary, rather than add one or two more, wait, and then find out that apparently it still doesn't satisfy the criteria. Especially when one reviewer tells me it's just about acceptable, and another says it has "zero importance." TWTCommish (talk)TWTCommish

Questions

• Question  Do you agree that viewpoints that are not based on policy should have the weight of the argument reduced?  By your words in the closing on this page, you recognize the presence of incivility enabling on Misplaced Pages...did your analysis of consensus remove the non-policy based influence of incivility enabling?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question  Your unblock reads, "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA".  Should a decision that has the potential to disrupt Misplaced Pages be made to a higher standard than "appears"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question  Your unblock in the block log reads, "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA", with similar comments at .  In both edits you opine that the edit summary was uncivil.  The block states, "Personal attacks or harassment: Blatant personal attack in edit summary, and incivility in the substantive comment".  Here BHG partially blocks for incivility.  WP:CIVIL is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.  How do you explain agreeing that there was a policy violation for incivility and also overturning the block?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to imagine we'll need to get that effigy of Panda going on now, considering that the staunch, needful crowd won't get a response for some 5 days. Tutelary (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Let me don my Panda outfit for a moment: a 72-hour block for a very verbose "you're not smart" is too much. A warning could have sufficed. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and not every uncivil comment should be met with a block. OK, done--that itches. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, that's not what was said. All of the previous warnings and shortened blocks obviously have not prevented the multitude of personal attacks and incivility that came later, so the notion that a warning could have sufficed seems unlikely. What is more likely is that if BHG had not posted to ANI, and the block was allowed to stand, Eric would have realized that his incivility has consequences that affect his ability to enjoy editing.- MrX 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Eric anymore than you can speak for the supposed droves of editors who left the project because of him. I think that if you were in his high-profile position (which he has not, as far as I know him, sought himself) you'd understand him a bit better. You may be called "MrX", but Eric has a real X on his back. Mind you, and I'm explaining since everyone seems to read everyone else incorrectly, I am not saying that that was the cause of his block: I'll give BrownHairedGirl much more credit than that. But the resulting shit storm, and the claims of corruption and cronyism and enabling, well, no situation involving "regular" editors would erupt like that. I got blocked one time (for incivility, I suppose), and then unblocked (fortunately), and I never even made it to Jimbo's talk page. No charges of cronyism etc. were leveled at the unblocking admin, as far as I know. Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with Eric's words (outside of article space), but sheesh, does the whole f***ing project have to explode over this? Is "dumb" (or, really, "not smart") really the worst insult you've ever heard here? Worse incivilities have gone unpunished, and still go unpunished.

  If BrownHairedGirl hadn't posted to ANI, someone would most likely have unblocked anyway, someone who places the civility goal post farther away. Someone like me. And I really would not have enjoyed that, since I respect BrownHairedGirl--so I'm glad this Panda is bearing the brunt of it, and I can sit on the sideline. Except that with ANI, all these talk pages, BN, and Jimbo's talk page, there don't seem to be sidelines anymore. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Have to say, I have enormous respect for Panda for the way he has dealt with this - it was always going to end up shitty, but I think that, thanks to him, it has turned out a bit less brown and smelly than it might have. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Those are all reasonable points, even if I don't agree with some of them. I apologize for stating that there are admin enablers. What I should have said is that civility enforcement of vested contributors is controversial, and tends to polarize the community and results in significant disruption. Some admins, often the same admins involved in previous Eric Corbett issues, sometimes use their unblock button outside of the intent of policy, or in disregard of a lack of consensus to so.

Eric and a few other editors have a history of calling people stupid in a colorful variety of forms. Do I care if it's directed at me? Not one bit. But many users view it as unacceptable and damaging to the project. Each time it's excused, it sets the bar lower for how we should interact and collaborate to build the encyclopedia. Civility declines, editors leave, and the project fails to achieve its full potential. On reflection, I think a possible solution would be an elected committee of civility arbitrators, with a streamlined process of deciding if policies has been violated and what sanctions should be applied. Of course that's unlikely to happen unless its imposed by the WMF. <shrug> - MrX 17:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. What if I run for that board? Would you vote for me? Anyway, thanks. Disagreement is great, but we owe it to ourselves to bring light, not heat. See, I don't really see civility as declining: it's an age-old complaint. Anyway, thanks for your response. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have no respect for Panda at all. Eric did not ask to be unblocked! There was no emergency. It was a thoughtless, sexist, knee-jerk, over-reaction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow, a sexist unblock! First time for everything. Also, no one got blocked for being a sexist. I think your comment is a bit of an...overreaction. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Questions: Where are you going now, D-P? Where will you be tomorrow? Will you bring me happiness? Will you bring me sorrow? All the questions of a thousand dreams: what you do and what you seem? Panda, can you talk to me? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • WK, you are WAY too young for that song--FOUR ways too young. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, it was either that or The Moody Blues, but I like CSNY much better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Heh, I've seen both in concert! Either will do! Montanabw 08:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'm going back to listening to Taylor Swift now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• New timestamp.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgot Password

My username is LoverBoyInGarden . I don't remember my password. And i haven't registered email. If I create another account it will be considered sockpuppet--117.233.56.75 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately if you didn't register an email and you don't recall your password there's no way to re-gain access to your account. Dusti 13:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Given that User:LoverBoyInGarden has made only 4 edits, and they were several months ago, there should be no problem with just creating a new account and forgetting about the old one. Having multiple accounts is only impermissible if your abusing them in some way. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT. If you want to be safe, you could make a note on your new userpage identifying your previous account, but with only 4 edits to the old one, that isn't even necessary. Monty₈₄₅ 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather

Could I intrigue you into taking a look at this and tell me if it qualifies as an example of meat puppetry or not? I don't want to make such an accusation unless it qualifies. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_that_Sue_Rangell_be_prohibited_from_editing_Spitzer_material Thank you in advance. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)