W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Panda2024

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

January 2024



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm TheEpTic. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions ↗—specifically <span class="plainlinks">this edit ↗</span> to :Recognition of same-sex unions in India ↗—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox ↗. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse ↗ or the Help desk ↗. Thanks. <!-- Template:Huggle/warn-1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->TheEpTic (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024




25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi Panda2024! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of :Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel ↗ several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy ↗ disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages ↗ to try to reach consensus ↗. If you are unable to agree&#32;at {{TALKPAGENAME:Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel}} ↗, please use one of the dispute resolution options ↗ to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> ('''talk''') 13:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Wiiformii. I noticed that you recently removed content ↗ from :Same-sex marriage in North Carolina ↗&nbsp;without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary ↗. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page ↗. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> Wiiformii (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary based on what?



https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel&oldid=prev&diff=1228279412

how did you determine whether the anchor was unnecessary?

MWQs (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

:Sagi Golan is hardly a notable person. Panda2024 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

::There no notability criteria on an anchor? Almost the opposite, if he was a notable person he'd have his own page and not need an anchor on the short paragraph referring to him. MWQs (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::Please don't remove anchors without consulting the editor who added them, they are needed to direct incoming links to the right part of the page. MWQs (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::You've got three other editors above giving you feedback on changes they didn't think were constructive. If you repeatedly make changes that break things you risk getting blocked from editing. MWQs (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:@Panda2024 why do you want it removed!? MWQs (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
:Ah, I see what's confusing now, you can remove the link from his name, the square brackets, I'm not sure why that's there. But please put back the anchor template. It links from OTHER pages. MWQs (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikkei ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Sweden Yearly Meeting ↗


48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.</p><p>You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on :Sweden Yearly Meeting ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group that does not credibly indicate ↗ how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Sweden+Yearly+Meeting|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> Fram (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion ↗ of :Sweden Yearly Meeting ↗


left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :Sweden Yearly Meeting ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''No evidence of any notability ↗ (nor any claim to it as far as I can see), lacks independent indepth reliable sources.'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons ↗.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary ↗ or on the article's talk page ↗.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, the speedy deletion ↗ process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> Fram (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/09&oldid=1258243804 -->

WMLGBT Community Meeting April 2025


Hi there! I hope this message finds you well. I'd like extend an invitation to you to join the upcoming Wikimedia LGBT+ ↗ online Community Meeting. We will be discussing, among other topics, the 2025 edition of the Wiki Loves Pride ↗ global campaign and how to collaborate better across languages on queer-related articles. You can register and find more information about it on: meta:WMLGBT Community Meeting April 2025 ↗.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in Sint Maarten.



Hey, sorry if I came off a bit harsh in my last edit.

I hope the following will not come off nitpicky, but I believe there has been another slight error in the page regarding the source from Daily Herald you used.

Where in the text (see reference for 6 b) it mentions facilities and equal treatment (Somewhere between line 71 and 75) “However, acceptance and …only to heterosexual couples” “When a facility, … based on non-discrimination rules.”
The text makes several claims. None of these can be found in the daily herald article (reference 6, name=“sintmaarten”)

On top of this, and this is in no way criticism of your edits, I think I will add some language like “but this may be legalised in the future” as the other source you’ve added (76crimes) mentions ‘but that’s likely just a court challenge away’.

Thank you for your work. Slomo666 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha ↗



Excellent work. I assessed this as B-Class. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Panda2024&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1314855346 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright



30px|alt=Control copyright icon ↗ Hello Panda2024! Your additions to :Same-sex marriage in Georgia (U.S. state) ↗ have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted ↗ content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain ↗ or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible ↗ copyright license—''to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission ↗''. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright ↗ and plagiarism ↗ issues. Here are the key points:
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked ↗ from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-copyright-new --> — Diannaa&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(talk) 13:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1322758940 -->

November 2025



30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Dear Panda2018, please avoid ad-hominems and stop attacking ↗ other editors, as you did here ↗. If you continue, you may be blocked ↗ from editing, just like others who were arrogant and biased toward me. Thank you, bye. Cyanmax (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

December 2025


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Kvinnen. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :Recognition of same-sex unions in Tamil Nadu ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable ↗. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation ↗, your edit is archived in the page history ↗. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> Kvinnen (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:Category:Same-sex marriage in Brazil by state ↗ has been nominated for merging



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Same-sex marriage in Brazil by state ↗ has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. Dudzcar (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2



An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
:Recognition of same-sex unions in Poland ↗
::added links pointing to Paweł Olszewski ↗, Janusz Kowalski ↗, Marek Wesoły ↗ and Michał Cieślak ↗

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

3RR warning



30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ You appear to be engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. An ''edit war'' occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please '''do not revert or undo''' the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the '''talk page ↗''' to discuss how the page can represent consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this ↗. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion ↗, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard ↗, or seek dispute resolution ↗.

'''Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing ↗''', especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ↗ within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. You can still be blocked for edit warring '''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule''' should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — kwami (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:Let’s normalise accepting sources and not removing encyclopaedic content. Panda2024 (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::"Encyclopedic" means you have a RS that it is so. AFAICT you do not.
::When your source says Nepal does not have SSM, then it is not encyclopedic to claim that it does.
::It would be great if it were true. We just don't have encyclopedic reason to believe it is. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Tag warning



Do not remove {cn} or {fv} tags without resolving the issue. This can get you blocked just as easily as 3RR can.

AFAICT, Bulgaria and Slovakia do not afford minimal recognition to SSM. Others have pointed out the same thing to you. If there is recognition, you should edit the articles accordingly so that they correspond to their inclusion in the SSM nav box.

Of course, I may have overlooked something, but from your arguments it does not appear so. You keep saying that the EU court ruling is "applicable" to these countries. But "applicable" does not mean "applied". If a country ignores a ruling to provide rights, then there are no rights. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:Let’s normalise having a good understanding of EU law before adding/removing encyclopaedic content on EU matters for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The ''Trojan'' ruling is final. Regardless of conflicting national law, any couple in Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria can petition a court to recognise their marriage. In a sense, this is similar to Lithuania, where couples can ask a court to recognise a civil partnership. The governments’ stances are irrelevant, the courts are bound to follow EU law. Panda2024 (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::Do they follow EU law? That is the question. "Bound to" doesn't mean anything if they don't. Do you have RS's that they ''actually follow'' the ruling? An encyclopedia is about what is, not what should be. — kwami (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm crying. They are part of the EU... courts are bound/obligated/forced to apply the ruling. omg Panda2024 (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm aware of that. Tell us when you have sources that they have done so. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::That’s the thing, I really don’t think you do… the ECJ ruling explicitly forces every member state to recognise marriages performed abroad. Couples can ask any Polish, Slovak, Romanian or Bulgaria court to have their marriage recognised. Whether the government will afford all the domestic rights of marriage is a separate question, in which case Poland would need to be removed from the table altogether as well. The government can publicly state they won’t adhere to the ruling, complain, fight, etc but courts will reconsider marriages regardless. Here is the text of the judgment so you can familiarise yourself with it: https://www.lawpluralism.unimib.it/en/oggetti/1153-trojan-and-cupriak-trojan-v-wojewoda-mazowiecki-case-c-147-24-cjeu-grand-chamber-25-november-2025? Panda2024 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::In addition, Slovakia affords limited rights to couples through a close person status, so it shouldn’t be removed at all. Panda2024 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Parallels can be drawn to Lithuania, where courts continue to recognise civil partnerships subsequent to a Constitutional Court ruling, and this despite the government’s resolute opposition to same-sex unions. Also, the various counties in Alabama, Texas or Kentucky that refused to issue marriage licenses despite Obergefell. The counties’ opposition and refusal to issue licenses didn’t negate the fact that marriage was legal. Panda2024 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::No, courts can't "force" anything. Govts may be ''obligated'' to follow a ruling, but we have plenty of examples of them failing to fulfill their obligations. You need a ref that they are actually implementing the rights they've been ordered to implement before we can say that they are implementing the rights that they've been ordered to implement.
::::::As for Slovakia, according to the article on WP-en the anticipated rights were never implemented. I don't have any additional sources. Do ''you'' have a source that those rights are actually available? If so, great [and they should be added to that article], but if not, we can't claim rights against the evidence we have. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I’m crying… I’ve tried explaining this as easily as possible but it seems I just cannot. Yes, they can very much "force" it. EU law has primacy over conflicting national law. As proven by the situation in Poland, any couple can approach the courts to have their marriage recognised. I’m truly sorry, but I don’t know how I can be more clear. The ruling is fully binding. "As for Slovakia, according to the article on WP-en the anticipated rights were never implemented. I don't have any additional sources." This is, of course, incorrect as Slovak law provides limited legal rights to couples: https://www.snslp.sk/wp-content/uploads/Individual-submission-SNCHR_UPR-4th-cycle.pdf, and the Wikipedia article perfectly confirms this. Panda2024 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I have full-protected the page again, this time for a week. Guys, it's pretty clear that you are beyond changing each other's minds on this issue. You need to get more people involved in this issue, discussing the question of whether a multinational court's decision, or something else like this is enough to put a country on "allows same-sex unions" or whether national legislation is needed. You don't ''need'' to have an RFC on this, maybe just posting a notice at WT:LGBTQ ↗ would be enough for a first try. Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:There is no need to protect the page. Simply inform this severely ignorant editor that Slovakia and Bulgaria are members of the European Union. It’s as simple as that. Plus, getting more editors involved will unfortunately not work, as this user has a long history of totally ignoring majority consensus and acting as if Wiki is his personal blog. They will simply ignore the majority consensus if it turns out not to be what they want. Panda2024 (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)