→ANI on ANI: who? |
EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk | contribs) →ANI on ANI: final |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
:::: Key point in your quote: "...should not be archived yet". Yours should have been archived. There's a difference. You continue to astound me with your [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous</font>]][[User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda</font>]]</span> 10:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
:::: Key point in your quote: "...should not be archived yet". Yours should have been archived. There's a difference. You continue to astound me with your [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous</font>]][[User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda</font>]]</span> 10:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::I objected the archiving by reverting. It was not closed. Your word ''immediate'' is not part of the process. Admins inaction is not an argument. Possibly ''you'' are not hearing things. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
:::::I objected the archiving by reverting. It was not closed. Your word ''immediate'' is not part of the process. Admins inaction is not an argument. Possibly ''you'' are not hearing things. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::: If there's nothing to act on, admins won't act. Your absolutely ridiculous insistence on a 6 month block merely cemented the ridiculousness. Why not go and learn some [[WP:5P|Wikipedia policy]], then learn to get along with people, and THEN learn things like [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] before making useless ANI threads that don't belong there <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous</font>]][[User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda</font>]]</span> 11:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:21, 11 August 2012
“ | "Never apologize for showing feeling. When you do so, you apologize for the truth." -- Benjamin Disraeli | ” |
COPYCAT
LOL..:) GiantBluePanda (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- It amused me that we share nearly same kind of names here..Mine = GiantbluePanda Your= DangerousPanda. GiantBluePanda (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Anyways, It's off-topic. but, do you own the book Eats Shoots And Leaves or read it ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- No mood for reply ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
To be fair
I don't approve of the way in which Nobody Ent expressed himself, but I figure asking the question and getting the answer here would be helpful to cut some of the drama which will likely follow. If someone expresses expresses a query or concern on the admin user talk page regarding the admin-related actions, conduct, judgment or position, you know well enough to strictly respond from the admin account, don't you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- You know as well as everyone else does why I am NOT logging into the Bwilkins account, period - the Jimbo talkpage discussion was quite clear, as was my promise to Jimbo. This account is being used as an alternative to a temporary desysop of the Bwilkins account. As such, no, I cannot respond directly from the Bwilkins account. It's also well-known that I originally could not link the accounts due to formal harassment from the primary editor in that Jimbo fiasco. There's no question, and should be no drama. dangerouspanda 11:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I do know; I have not followed this except for the snapshot I looked at before my making my most recent comment at the admin user talk. But if it won't be a problem, then all good. Best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Re
You asked me a question and I answered you. I will again ask you to clarify your response to me. What have I "misread", and to which things did I "add my own meaning"? Joefromrandb (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was not watching your talkpage as I felt that the conversation was over - you had clarified your reasoning, which I disagree with and it doesn't match anything I have done, but I appreciated your candor - we each have our own interpretation of things. I at least have a better understanding of where you're coming from. However, since it's 100% wrong and is based more on faulty interpretation, there's little I can do to "work on the problems" and improve myself. Cheers. dangerouspanda 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered the two specific questions I asked you. I'm not trying to badger you, and if you would prefer this conversation to be over that is fine. So I will not inquire again. If you are willing to answer my questions I would appreciate it. If you'd rather not respond then I too will consider this conversation to be over. I am asking in good faith. If I've truly misunderstood things I'd rather have it explained to me so I can reevaluate my opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I will answer a few issues that raised my brow at the time I read them.
- You questioned two statements (I'll trust they're accurate): ""there's a reason my user page says I'm an admin willing to make difficult blocks, although I make so few of them". Then, on August 2nd you said, "my user page says I'm an admin willing to make difficult blocks, and I make many of them". When you parse the phrases normally, the two statements are quite in line with each other and actually say: "although on the whole I make few blocks, of the few blocks I make, the majority are considered to be difficult blocks". No lying, no falsehoods, no pulling woll over anyone's eyes.
- Regarding the ANI thread, it was started because there was a problem - and other admins agreed it was a problem. As edit-warring HAD been happening, a block (indeed two) should have happened. However, I try not to block - I protect pages instead. As the edit-warring had been recent, the protection was valid to protect against both parties. The warning was valid and clear: if you or anyone had indeed gone on to recreate articles that were substantively the same as those that had been AFD'd, that editor was going to be blocked by me or another admin as per WP:DISRUPT. That statement was also confirmed by other admins. In that entire situation, rather than the blocks that should have happened to two of you, I AGF'd that neither of you were going to continue performing the same actions, but protect and warn both sternly. Obviously, what I saw as restraint in not blocking you somehow took to be aggressive - very confusing, actually.
- On the third part, the point was that I was to not perform admin functions for awhile - there certainly was no consensus to either voluntarily desysop, or to be community desysopped. As such, using my non-admin account meets the desire of Jimbo and handful of editors - I've gone above and beyond what was required, which should of course be recognized positively, not berated or made fun of. If I sign in tomorrow and block someone, it was a charade, and you can call me on it. dangerouspanda 16:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I thank you sincerely for answering my questions. As I disagree with just about all of it, we will apparently have to agree to disagree. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
I greatly admire all of the great work you are doing here despite the harassment. Please see my barnstar on your BWilkins account. Best, Electric Catfish 23:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC).
- Much appreciated. It's frustrating when someone is told again and again that the occasional use of "language" has been held by the community to be ok - my error was to direct it at someone, once. It takes a certain type of person to not accept the apology and move on. It takes an even worse person to take the steps they have. dangerouspanda 11:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Maradona
yes. I was close enough to take that picture. That was his last match with his team before he was sacked. He was just angry and sad for loosing the title.--Neogeolegend (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wondered that too, but the EXIF data is spot on. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons. The original problem was incompatability with the original Flickr "All Rights Reserved" license, but Neogeolegend changed it. Now, several editors, including Coren, have questioned Neogeolegend's ownership of the image. Discussion is here. Neogeolegend seems reluctant to explain how he got the shot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for closing that Wikiquette thread. It was simply going nowhere. -- Avanu (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's now my second time closing it ... Nobody Ent undid my first close from much earlier today, so I expanded on my reasoning in the edit summary this time dangerouspanda 16:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, but I don't think you meant to say wikt:denigrate vt. Perhaps wikt:degenerate v. was intended? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't close active threads at WQA. You'll notice there is no instructions for closing threads early while the thread is active. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the way the thread had deteriorated, it was vital to do, and valid. My explanation in the edit summary was clear as to reason dangerouspanda 20:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- While I agree with you in principle, IRWolfie, the goals of Wikiquette weren't being closely followed even by the one who brought it to Wikiquette and most everyone else was degrading it as well. I think in this case, you are getting more by closing it sooner than by just leaving it as an open wound to fester. -- Avanu (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the way the thread had deteriorated, it was vital to do, and valid. My explanation in the edit summary was clear as to reason dangerouspanda 20:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't close active threads at WQA. You'll notice there is no instructions for closing threads early while the thread is active. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
ANI on ANI
You are on ANI. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh...you brought forward an issue that you were told didn't need Admin assistance, you then attacked someone, and lucky for you it was archived ...now you want it back? dangerouspanda 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- ... and now you "require" a 6 month block? Require??? dangerouspanda 00:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry, ESAL. I removed the trolling and warned DP about that personal attack he made on Nyttend. :) Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)::didn't need Admin assistance, - I disagree, factually. Anyway, ANI should solve it. Not should you remove it. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- When the claim is not an outrageous rant, we can talk. Please stop trolling ANI. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The immediate you added yourself. -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, this I copy from the page: Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment.
- Key point in your quote: "...should not be archived yet". Yours should have been archived. There's a difference. You continue to astound me with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATdangerouspanda 10:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I objected the archiving by reverting. It was not closed. Your word immediate is not part of the process. Admins inaction is not an argument. Possibly you are not hearing things. -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- If there's nothing to act on, admins won't act. Your absolutely ridiculous insistence on a 6 month block merely cemented the ridiculousness. Why not go and learn some Wikipedia policy, then learn to get along with people, and THEN learn things like dispute resolution before making useless ANI threads that don't belong there dangerouspanda 11:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I objected the archiving by reverting. It was not closed. Your word immediate is not part of the process. Admins inaction is not an argument. Possibly you are not hearing things. -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Key point in your quote: "...should not be archived yet". Yours should have been archived. There's a difference. You continue to astound me with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATdangerouspanda 10:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, this I copy from the page: Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment.
- ... and now you "require" a 6 month block? Require??? dangerouspanda 00:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)