Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlldiRessie (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 5 June 2013 (→User:Technical_13). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

May 2013

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Edits like this one are inappropriate, particularly from an administrator. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being thumped like a narc at a biker rally. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It happens pretty frequently at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I'm not sure where that even remotely resembles a personal attack. For someone who pretends to have some degree of a clue, there's a massive amount of cluelessness done by the IP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. I'll ask you again to please stop your personal insults as you did with this comment, which is a clear violation of WP:WIAPA. The policy states that "Belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" is considered a personal attack. It is regrettable that you don't understand why your initial comment was insulting. As an administrator, I would hope that you would set a proper example by treating other editors in a civil manner, and deescalating any tensions that may be present, rather than increasing them. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 76 is just trolling at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. WP:AGF and WP:IGNORANCE can only be taken so far. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 07:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Ok, I give up....you've beaten me again at Talk:Refund (I would have only mailed the external links), so I'll go and have a beer myself now. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL ... I'll save the beer until lunch-time (although ... time is an illusion; lunch-time doubly so). I suppose I was too damned lazy to simply strip out the links, and e-mailing contents didn't seem to be hurting anyone (yet). Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit past lunch time here, so I'll go and enjoy a Westmalle triple. Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're better stocked than I am currently, Lectonar. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Can you tell me why you chose to ignore the point made by WaltCip in this incident? And having looked around at how others reported at ANI are treated for similar episodes, is there any reason why I shouldn't think that your treatment of my case was out of the ordinary, and seemingly designed simply to lock me up and throw away the key, on the basis that it was likely nobody would notice/care beyond that sort of single comment at ANI, and that rather than persisting with the ponderous and mentally abusive unblock process that you put me in, that I would probably just take Jehochman's advice anyway if I ever wanted to return. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Already explained elsewhere - please keep discussions together (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Peterzor

The guy just admitted to being a sock of a banned user here. What are you going to do about it? --Nug (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Do you realize the attitude that your post reads with? Why approach me? The post was made in the middle of WP:ANI with dozens of admins reading it ... why single me out? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, why the apparent paranoia? You where the first admin to comment at the top of the ANI thread, so why wouldn't I approach you. Really, I didn't know there were "dozens" of admins were reading it, I had the opposite impression. Could have been an easy uncontroversial block for you, but someone else has beaten you to it. Shrug. Anyway the matter appears resolved now. --Nug (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any paranoia from Bwilkins, but Nug, you did come across quite dickish. Most administrators would probably have a similar reaction. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nug, most people don't like being treated like a jukebox, where you can shove in a coin and demand instant gratification. Admins are no exception. Most admin enjoy helping others, but when it gets demanded, like here "What are you going to do about it?", it is a bit annoying. Any admin can refuse to take action in a case, just like any editor can refuse to edit any article they don't want to. In both cases, asking politely is more likely to get the result you are looking for. As for "but someone else has beaten you to it", we don't get paid by the block nor get extra health points for them. It isn't a game. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user editing by proxy

Hello, it seems that Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) is continually attempting (and succeeding) to edit by proxy, posting diffs on his user talk page for attention by others. Example, example, example. While I cannot find another example further in the past, it seems to me that I complained about this before, perhaps to a different admin, a few months ago. It is developing as a pattern that disturbs me. There is policy against this activity by banned users, I am not sure how it applies to blocked users, but surely it cannot be permitted either? Your feedback would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm watching his talkpage - I know what he's doing alright. You're right though, there's a policy against banned editors, but formally not blocked editors that I know of. However, one could make the argument that the only reason one has access to one's talkpage while blocked is to compose unblock requests - but it's a tough argument. A discussion on the talkpage of the blocking policy might lead to some form of consensus against proxy-editing. Nevertheless, someone who tries to edit by proxy has some inflated sense of self-worth, and a belief that the project "cannot do without them" while they're blocked - if that were truly the case, then an editor would work hard to not become blocked, wouldn't they? It's pretty distasteful nonetheless, and is a slap in the face to well-behaved editors everywhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677

In closing you forgot to include the XfD part of the ban... Not sure if you realize that was part of it as well. Thanks for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Despite my attempts to try and help people like that, apparently some are just incapable or unwilling to get it and take what they can get for help. It's sad... Anyways, happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Worlds chat for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Worlds chat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Need some advice

Hi Bwilkins..Since some time User:Sukpreet2013 has been creating pages on imaginary Punjabi movies. He makes up this movie titles and pages look bit convincing NewPagePatroler so the pages are marked as reviewed. But whenever I try to find references, I always fail to locate even a single reference. I am myself a Punjabi, so can see if the reference is available in the local language. Most of these pages have been speedy deleted as hoaxes. One I have PRODed. Plus he has created some BLP pages, some of which have been deleted or are presently nominated (due to lack of notability). In nutshell out of some 15 pages he has created, only 2-3 seems to survive. I have tried to communicated with him in every possible way, but he is not responding to talkpage messages. Can this user be blocked or reported for introducing inappropriate pages. If yes, where to report him?--Vigyani_talk 03:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DS and RP

RegentsPark unblocked Darkness Shines. RP is involved with me in multiple heated discussions and he knows that I am right now the reason for DS's block. Regentspark is, in my opinion, also involved with DS in various discussions and it seems odd, to say the least, that of all the admins RP chose to see an allusion towards the demerits of the block as an expression of "remorse", that too after multiple declines of unblock request by DS. He is as unrepentant as ever. I don't see where he regretted derogatorily labelling someone (like me). Anyways, RP should not have been the one to unblock DS from a serious block such as this. I have to look askance at this. Mr T 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate to have to piddle on your fireworks but you were not the reason for my block, I was. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty bogus complaint. However, if you really insist, I'm quite happy to block DS again and then unblock him, though of course I would have to mention your complaint in the block log, which probably wouldn't do you any favours if there are future issues. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also suggest that MrT is quite fortunate to not have been blocked himself, based on the overall circumstances - and the blocks likely would have matched in length. As much as I'm not 100% happy with RP's unblock, it appears to be the "lesser of 2 weevils" right now - and further provocation/similar actions by either party will not end well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Recidivism or what?

will others still say that it's me who should thank own luck for escaping the block? Really? Mr T 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone else's incivility does not excuse your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Bwilkins, pardon me if I have given away wrong impression. I don't wish to sound as a person who defends fallacious arguments, I have never said, even for a moment, that "someone else's incivility excuses my own" because that would be hypocritical. But since you said, "further provocation/similar actions by either party will not end well" I thought I'd check it with you. I, for one, do not think I have been uncivil with DS in this case. I don't like being uncivil, perhaps nobody does. Mr T 18:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical_13

Hey, I have respect for you and your suggestions. That being said I do firmly believe that people learn by doing. I also believe that the best leaders are those that lead by example. I appreciate your answer to my question, even if I would have expected it on my talk page. I will try to ask those kinds of questions on UT: pages in the future. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Learning requires not repeating the mistakes. Learning means understanding that a new thread is not appropriate because you recognize it's not a discussion forum. Learning means that you don't do more damage and know when to leave well-enough alone. You failed pretty miserably on all 3, and as such, the self-imposed topic ban is the right step - it would be quite easy to have it formalized based on how badly you messed up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no intentions to avoid commenting my observations (although often very obvious) on other discussions on AN (although I usually try to avoid that page to begin with) where I see fit. I will however refrain from opening any new discussions unless it is a last resort. I've been told informed by Dennis Brown that "History has shown that the community is usually unwilling to consider 3rd party requests and they aren't supported in policy." I'm sure I totally understand why this is, as having a 3rd party request is the requirement for the standard offer, although I do not doubt that his words are fact. I will attempt, as I said above to be more mindful of my comments on AN (when I make them). Anyways, I hope you have a nice day and I look forward to possibly having your support on my RfA when I submit it (I'm expecting to make a first attempt in about six months, and after reading all of the documentation and historic results of said process expect to be denied the first few times). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Standard offers are generally only accepted first party. The vast majority of blocked editors do not have talk page access revoked, so they are done via the talk page. Having an editor copy their text over to WP:AN isn't considered 3rd party, it is proxy editing, which is completely different. Editors with blocked talk page access can apply for the standard offer via WP:BASC, which can be handled there or again relayed to WP:AN and is again, not a 3rd party request, just a copy/paste service. I think this is why there are some concerns, Technical. There are a lot of nuances to policy that aren't obvious at a glance. One of those is knowing when to use the editor's talk page instead of ANI to ask a question, for example, when that question wouldn't be adding to the discussion and might serve only as a distraction. At ANI, words are the enemy, and the goal is to solve problems using the least amount you can, else the discussion goes off on tangents. I'm not saying you should avoid all interaction at AN/ANI, but it is an easy place to develop a bad reputation as it is a very public place. Mistakes don't go unnoticed there and have a way of haunting an editor at RfA. I caution you as I would any editor who shows a sudden interest in the ugly and dangerous neighborhood that is AN/ANI. Of course, you are free to ignore my advice if you like, it is just that: advice. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for clarifying that Dennis, based on discussions of Paramsinghantaal's conditions on either mine or Writ Keeper's talk page (IIRC) I guess I misunderstood proxy to be 3rd party. I actually try to avoid AN(I) as much as I can, although it may not seem like it. I'm a really good hearted person that has pure intentions of wanting to help others, and I know I sometimes let it get the best of me. Like I said above, I don't intend to strictly self-impose an AN(I) topic ban on myself, and if someone felt that it is really necessary to formalize the suggestion that it should exist, I wouldn't hold it against them or be overly upset about it. I am really easy to get along with once you get to know me a little, and if I say something out of line, I actually appreciate those that take the time to leave some constructive criticism on my talk page. Technical 13 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And I only have good things to say about you and know you have the best of intentions. It is why I bothered to offer the advice. ANI is full of trolls, Wikilawyers and grumpy old men with block buttons, I wouldn't wish it on my enemy. That is why I patrol it, as I'm generally immune to the attacks and have skin as thick as leather. Like I said, there is a great deal of nuance to how things are done here and I don't claim to have half of it figured out myself. I had 18,000 edits over 5.5 years before I felt I was educated enough on policy to seek the admin bit. Maybe I'm dense, or just cautious, but rushing into these things seldom works out well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins is the troll, I'm the wikilawyer, and Dennis is the grumpy old man, if you're wondering. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) PS: THAT WAS A JOKE <3

I'm assuming the PS part was directed at me due to the OMS thing, and I know a joke when I smell one... You guys should get an air freshener in here. Technical 13 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was directed at Bwilkins, since, 'yknow, I called him a troll. (Dennis knows he's a grumpy old man at heart, despite his peacemaker-of-the-wiki exterior. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you say Dennis has a pacemaker?? *snicker* (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would argue BWilkins is the grumpy old man. I'm not even 50 years old yet. That kind of grumpiness takes at least 70 years. Probably wears his pants all the way up to his armpits. ;-) He is right, however. Grumpy, but right. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm likely younger than you - old man LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)