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
- Not really sure what this is about, or what needs to be followed up on the panda ₯’ 17:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Questions
To quote Admiral Ackbar: "it's a trap!" After all, my belief that policy-based arguments typically take precedence is well-known
|
---|
|
Life has enough drama. Wikipedia has enough drama. Hopefully the event that spawned this discussion has calmed down and some degree of rationality has kicked in the panda ₯’ 08:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Undeletion request for Anamika Mishra wikipedia page
Anamika Mishra wikipedia page is protected from recreation. Previously there was notability issue and lack of good sources due to which the page was deleted.Here is a good source from sakaal times newspaper http://www.sakaaltimes.com/Tiny.aspx?K=a1SMD of latest interview of Anamika Mishra and her best selling novel Too Hard To Handle. As Sakaal Times is a prominent English daily newspaper. The recent interview published clearly resolves the issue of real people significance and notability.
Here are the reference links of her other facebook and twitter fan pages which also proves that she is a well known and famous author from India. www.facebook.com/anamika.mishraa www.twitter.com/anamikawrites
Therefore i request you to undelete and reinstate Anamika Mishra Wikipedia Page. Thanks.
1.38.17.205 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- That sad little interview does nothing of the sort. If you wish to work on an draft, feel free, but "sources" like the above hurt, more than help the panda ₯’ 08:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
your 3 questions
Dear Dangerous Panda,
congratulations on your brilliantly chosen user name.
To answer your questions:
Yes, I do understand the difference between WikiPedia and a business directory. Yes, I do understand the concept of "conflict of interest". I picked the original username to make that obvious. Yes, I do understand notable. And as one of the few notable hotels in the area, and to improve the quite empty category "Hotels in Andalucia" I wrote the article.
To give you a bit of your own medicine:
Do you understand "moderation"? Do yu know how to encourage authors? Are you aware that all your badges are like boy scout medals, for child play?
LO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.5.42 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a better question: do you understand WP:EVADE? the panda ₯’ 17:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Non-answers to the 3 questions about the "consensus" to unblock in four hours
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.
Trap or not, rational or not, the question is, are you going to revert your unblock? Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- That would be punitive - after all, the block would have expired long before now. If I re-blocked right now, I'd be in more shit than any human on the face of Wikipedia. You of all people have argued against punitive action in the past, so I expect that this is a rhetorical question at this point. However, after what I've just been through in R/L, I have no desire for rhetoric at the moment. We can talk all philosophical later. Cheers the panda ₯’ 10:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that you review WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision; with particular attention to "John's unblock", "John admonished", and "Thumperward's participation in discussing his actions". Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why. None of the sections you point to are related whatsoever. Unless, of course, this is some sort of threat - and I don't respond well to those. Prioer to my departure for Rumania, I EXTENSIVELY discussed my participation, my reasoning, etc. All discussions that I was a part of were appropriately ended and closed before I left. There was, at least related to my part, nothing more for me to participate in. What happened after I left might be different, but I've not been aware of such additional discussions - other than the one above you started that included questions that had already been answered dozens of times - which, by the way, is annoying as hell. I'm expected to respond to questions on my admin actions - ONCE, not a dozen times, thank you. You're simply shooting the messenger now, and the message was "I ABHOR INCIVILITY, AND THE COMMUNITY HAS NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT TO DO ABOUT INCIVILITY. EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT CIVILITY GETS SIDETRACKED. UNTIL SOMEONE SOMEWHERE DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT, EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECIFIC AND INDIVIDUAL CIVILITY BLOCKS WILL BE DECISIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE." the panda ₯’ 16:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, it is annoying - and that stick was dropped quite some time ago Unscintillating. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I note that I have read your comment, Dusti. Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, it is annoying - and that stick was dropped quite some time ago Unscintillating. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why. None of the sections you point to are related whatsoever. Unless, of course, this is some sort of threat - and I don't respond well to those. Prioer to my departure for Rumania, I EXTENSIVELY discussed my participation, my reasoning, etc. All discussions that I was a part of were appropriately ended and closed before I left. There was, at least related to my part, nothing more for me to participate in. What happened after I left might be different, but I've not been aware of such additional discussions - other than the one above you started that included questions that had already been answered dozens of times - which, by the way, is annoying as hell. I'm expected to respond to questions on my admin actions - ONCE, not a dozen times, thank you. You're simply shooting the messenger now, and the message was "I ABHOR INCIVILITY, AND THE COMMUNITY HAS NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT TO DO ABOUT INCIVILITY. EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT CIVILITY GETS SIDETRACKED. UNTIL SOMEONE SOMEWHERE DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT, EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECIFIC AND INDIVIDUAL CIVILITY BLOCKS WILL BE DECISIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE." the panda ₯’ 16:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that you review WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision; with particular attention to "John's unblock", "John admonished", and "Thumperward's participation in discussing his actions". Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- [comment moved below] Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- He's stated that he's done answering these questions as the issue is done and over. Move on, please. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I note that I have read your comment, Dusti. Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Panda, I was not assuming that I would make any further response here. However, you've opened at least one door. You now say that you've answered my initial questions more than once. Where are these answers? Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Check my contributions. All of them. the panda ₯’ 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)