Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Thank you

Hi Dennis, Just wanted to thank you once again for all of your great guidance and direction. Following my reincarnation under a new username I am pleased to have a string of articles that have not been challenged. Silas was a bit of a stretch, though as I learn more maybe not as much. I am very grateful for your ongoing help and support. Thank you and wishes of a Happy New Year! IDKremer (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ReUse Connection

Hi Dennis,

I just left a request for clarification on the ReUse Connection Articles Deletion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/ReUse_Connection). . . But I am confused as to where the best place to communicate to you is. Do you get all the messages on both the Article discussion page and the Article for Deletion discussion page? Sorry for the confusion. I am learning a lot about Wikipedia through this process and will be much better at it next time around.

Happy New Year!!

Ginalizardi (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I've answered on that page. You ask a lot of questions that aren't directly related to that particular article there, including about the policies here. You might want to first read up on the actual policies, as I can't explain them in a paragraph or two, and Wikipedia has created these guidance pages so people don't have to. Reliable sources, notablity and verification are must reads for new editors. They should answer 90% of the questions you would have. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

EPublicRelationsMT Spam

Adding Content Dear Mr. Brown,

I am trying to add a high value content item to a topic to Wikipedia, which I think would have a value to the readers. It is being deleted. Can you tell me why and what the specifications are to publish this interesting information so the readers can access it?

Thanks a lot for your support in advance Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPublicRelationsMT (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Your talk page already has the links, in the "welcome" section. If you are here solely to put links to your website (what it appears you are here for, since it is all you have done, it matches your name, and you name even SAYS you are here for "Public Relations") then please don't bother. People who come here solely to publicize their website end up hurting their websites instead, as the websites get blacklisted here, and Google takes note of which sites Wikipedia blacklists, so in the end, your search ranking goes DOWN, not up. It's kind of like karmic retribution, although it wasn't the actual design to do so. If you are here to promote any product or website (as your name implies) then please just leave. Go away. Likely, everything you do will end up reverted anyway, and you would be wasting your time and ours. The rest of us are here trying to build a free and open encyclopedia, and spamming just takes up valuable time. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ham edit

Good evening, I removed the "Curing Process" section as it had only one reference, used colloquial language (e.g. "little beasties") and is redundant since the top of the article links to the article on curing. If you think it should stay, please consider at least revising the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.233.207 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Landmark Christian School

I added a reference to Landmark Christian School so it should be good to go now. The article just means some major refining. I don't have time to do it right now, though. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 00:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Adding a link to their own website doesn't satisfy the requirement of WP:N, which is the policy on notability. This is a PRIMARY school. If you check the history of any primary school AFD discussion, you find that unless it can qualify under the general rules of notability (ie: WP:N or WP:ORG) then the name is redirected to the school board, or in the case of Christian schools, to the city to which it is located or headquartered in. I keep explaining this, and have covered this on the talk page, and stymied as to why it keeps getting reverted. Any link that shows "it exists" is meaningless. Only references that establish it is notable matter to maintain it as a stand alone article. If you would take the time to actually read the guidelines on notability, you can save yourself (and me) a lot of time and frustration reverting back and forth. Or again, you are welcome to get a third opinion. Or read Wikipedia:Schools. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The article redirect to Fairburn, Georgia does not mention Landmark Christian School in it. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 17:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Then that would be the place to put something about it, preferably with references, in the section that covers "Education". If at a later date, the school becomes notable, then it can be changed from a redirect to a stand alone article. This is pretty standard operating procedure here. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Elaine Donnelly

How do you establish the notability of someone who gets 90,000 Google hits? She's the lady liberals love to hate. Isn't that enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Ghits are meaningless. Please read WP:GHITS which clearly states this. Thousands upon thousand, if not hundreds of thousands, of people have many ghits, but are not notable, which is why we don't use ghits as a measure of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll just use the fact that Dana Milbank found her important enough to devote an entire op-ed article to. Want to help me beef up the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    If she has an entire op ed, then by all means remove the PROD and include that info into the article. It is just a PROD, not an AFD. I will look at it. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. If she's not notable but her Center for Military Readiness and its views are, then I can stop wasting time. It's often hard to tell which is more important, the person or their views. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    I think the op ed and her testifying before Congress puts her over the mark (wasn't aware she had, my mistake). That said, I'm glad they took her as an insane person. Yes, notable, but insane. Was just looking it over. You have to be very careful with this article, as it would be very easy for the article to appear to be quite negative, considering what she has said about the LGBT community over the years. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    LOL, thanks for sharing your gladness. :-) Don't worry, I'm a master at balancing positive and negative. I helped establish the guidelines for NPOVs (not the policy itself, but the nuts and bolts of how to follow it) in my first few years here. Some people accuse me of being one-sided when I'm actually just adding 'the other side' to something they think is a slam-dunk for their side.
    By the way, how do you like my article move of Anti-LGBT slogans to Anti-LGBT rhetoric? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried to work in that reference, from the external link, but edit conflicts stopped me. I will leave to you then. While I try to never let my person views affect my editing, it is no secret that I am very supportive of the LGBT community, even though I am not a part of it. And ex-miliary, to boot. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mirantis

Dear Dennis, I wanted to kindly ask you to review the Mirantis article again after the new edits we put in. Mirantis is an important independent company in the Cloud Computing space promoting open source products. It is one of the largest independent companies around OpenStack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStack) - an open source cloud operating system that will create a free alternative to huge vendors like Amazon, VMWare, IBM, etc. OpenStack is only 1.5 years old, but it has already become a strong force in the industry.

The awards we listed on the page (and temporarily removed after being called petty by one of the editors) are some of the highest and most respected awards a programmer can get. For example, the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest is the single most prestigious international programming competition in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACM_International_Collegiate_Programming_Contest). The winners are recognized by the hi-tech industry the same way as Olympic Champions are recognized by the general public.

The fact that Mirantis has these kids of people working for it lands a lot of credibility to the open source community and OpenStack in particular. An analogy would be if a top scientist from Adobe quit and joined Wikipedia.

We are convinced that Mirantis is an important company that deserves an article in Wikipeida. We would appreciate any pointers from you on how we can strengthen the points I tried to make here in a Wikipedia compliant manner.

Annafreedland (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Honestly, the way to get me motivated is just showing me how it passes the criteria at WP:N. It is never personal, it is all about criteria. I'm sorry, but in this case, it doesn't pass the criteria. The sources you have provided talk about other companies, not Mirantis. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock-tagging

Thanks for catching that:

was a reincarnation of:

I adjusted your tagging a bit. In particular, I added a blocked token to each template (since they are--it notes this fact in the displayed box) and shifted them from the usertalk to the userpage (it's the user's identity, no longer trying to communicate with it--seems to be the standard place to put them). Last, I removed the sock's name from the master's template: there's no field for that there, but the information is automatically available in the "account information" links in the displayed box, automatically created by the sock's template). DMacks (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Zanran

You tagged Zanran for speedy deletion as a repost of an article discussed at AfD. The article was deleted, but its author questioned the deletion, saying that it was substantially different from the previous article discussed at AfD. After looking at both versions of the article, I agreed. I consulted the deleting admin, who accepted that, so the article has been restored. If you still want it deleted you will have to start a new AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks. It is hard to tell if the new article is substantially the same as the old when you can't see the old one, as you likely know. Was having to go from memory. But I understand and trust the restore. Will review. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikipeditist

You may well be right about this editor. I had noticed the account myself, and wondered about it. Would you like to start a sockpuppet investigation page? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Trust-Hub

I know that you believe the article should be deleted but given that you sent the thing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust-Hub in 2011 you can't then add a PROD and you especially can't PROD it a second time. Please read WP:PROD where it says "has not been and is not being discussed at AfD." If you did not agree with the closing admin then you should have asked them about it. Your option now is to leave it or send it to a second AfD and hope someone else comments. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you got a second delete at the AfD this time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, it should have been deleted at the first AFD. A non admin closed it as keep, then unclosed it so an admin could close it as keep (no consensus). Since there was only one delete vote (me as nom) and not a single person spoke out to keep, it should have been deleted, just as in a prod. When no one disagrees, there is consensus..... I just didn't feel like going through the process here (which can be a huge pain), when the article clearly should be deleted. Perhaps I should have prod'ed to begin with, but I prefer to get other people's input. Not in a hurry, but the whole process seems to have been botched by the nonadmin, then admin, on the first. Ok, getting off my soapbox now ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Axialis Software

Why is the page I have created nominated for speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remzicavdar (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The company EXISTS, but it doesn't meet the criteria at WP:CORP. Wikipedia isn't a list of every business that exists, and in order for a company (or person, song, etc.) to have an article, it must pass a certain criteria. It must be "notable", using Wikipedia's definition, not mine or yours. This means a claim of notability and references from reliable sources WP:RS, which itself means mainstream publications, not blogs and forums. It isn't personal, it is the same criteria that all articles must pass. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tinga Tinga Tales

The IP that you responded to here is a sock of you-know-who. Therefore, I'm removing your response and their initial query. Calabe1992 20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

deletion recreate

An AFD article you participated in has been recreated. You may wish to comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pascal_Andres_(2nd_nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Adam, Eve and Datsa reference

http://burmeseyouthassociation.org/blog/2011/12/03/san-francisco-burmese-film-festival-2011/ and http://www.mmtimes.com/2011/timeout/588/timeout58804.html

Sir, How about these ? Are they still not qualify the reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aungthurahein (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • http://www.mmtimes.com, is perfect. The other, not so much. Sometimes, a blog for a reference is ok when nothing else exists, but all articles should have a few high quality references from very reliable sources (like mmtimes) simply to demonstrate that it IS notable. To show that some larger, mainstream newspaper is talking about it, and not just a bunch of blogs. Quality of the references is important here, more important the number of references. Thank you for following up. One more tip, when you post on a talk page, at the end of your post, add ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time and date to the post, so we know who posted it, and the bot doesn't have to do it for you. And welcome to Wikipedia, I know it is a bit overwhelming at first, but I'm confident you will get the hang of it after a short while. Like you, we all want Wikipedia to be a high quality place for information, so there are a few guidelines that we all have to follow. After a while, they will make more sense, I promise. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

G11 speedies

Hi. Thanks for tagging Alley Catss, but a quibble about the tag you chose: WP:CSD#G11 is only for "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", and this was quite a neutral description. There may well have been promotional intent, but that's not what G11 is about. There was absolutely no indication that this band was in any way significant, and I have zapped it under A7. If another criterion applies, I think it's preferable to use that in place of G11, otherwise the author may think that if he takes out a few glowing adjectives all will be well. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I was between the two, and thinking since it seemed the intent was to advertise on Wikipedia, that G11 would apply. But I get your point, that A7 is a "stronger" criteria that did apply and more appropriate criteria in this case. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Flora Zambesiaca

Companies?? Are you serious? Paul venter (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Companys and organizations share the same templates. I don't design the templates, I just use them, as Twinkle dishes them out. And as it stands, you haven't provided enough information to demonstrate that the "project" is indeed notable, per WP:CORP, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Perhaps your time would be better spent doing that than questioning the template I used. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go the extra mile to use a template that means what it says and perhaps to do a Google search to see whether notability proof is required. Flora Zambesiaca is neither a company nor an organisation. cheers Paul venter (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That is the proper template for that article. A "project" is an organization. Again, your efforts would be better spent demonstrating the project is notable before someone sends it off to AFD, since there are exactly zero references in the article from independent, reliable sources. My tagging was giving it the benefit of the doubt and trying to tell you that you need to source it properly. Take it personally if you must, but that is pretty silly since I don't know you. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No....I'm certainly not taking it personally, but just astounded that there are Wiki editors who feel that "a project is an organisation". Five minutes with a dictionary may be enlightening. Go well. Paul venter (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't define "organization" and "notability" according to your particular viewpoint (or mine). They are defined by the guidelines here at Wikipedia. Any group of people working toward a common goal, thus organized, is an "organization" for the purpose of guidelines. Again, I'm telling you for your own good, your time is better spent demonstrating that the project/work/organization/subject matter/whatever/ is notable, ie: has been covered by independent media, or better describing the project (the work, etc.). It is simply a tag, and one that would have already been removed had you spent the time to show links from mainstream publications talking about the project, instead of spending your time on my talk page. I have probably tagged 50 articles today, it is part of the process here. You are taking the tagging entirely too seriously, and the importance of proper references not nearly enough so. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"We don't define...." Are you setting yourself up as a spokesman for Wikipedia and its policies? The only reason I'm on your talk page is the fond hope that the process of education is reciprocal. Reading through some of the posts it becomes apparent that not everyone is happy with your approach - there are tactful ways for things to be done, while constantly keeping in mind that not all dissenting opinions are necessarily hostile and that most of us are trying to build a better WP. If I can make you aware of just those few points, I shall not have wasted my time - or yours. Paul venter (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome to go get your third opinion, as you stated on the talk page. All you are doing here is trying to start controversy over a simple and deserved tag, and I just don't see what is to be gained. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The tag is glaringly inappropriate and unjustified, and implies a hasty and ill-considered judgement on your part. If you are going to patrol new pages then try to understand and properly use the tools at your disposal. cheers Paul venter (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT reporting you!

I am reporting you to Wikipedia as you have followed me around all day picking fault with all of my articles, most recently Packet Corned Beef. This is harrassment of the highest order and I feel that you are victimising me. Bravo Plantation (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are purposely trying to frighten me, but your cyberstalking and bullying will not scare me. Bravo Plantation (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • No, I'm a big teddy bear. I'm not an admin here, I have no special powers, no more than you do. I am a new page patroller, which means I'm just an ordinary Joe whose has taken it upon himself to look at ALL new articles (that I can) on Wikipedia, thus why I run into so many articles by the same person if they were created on the same day. You can read about it with that link I provided. But don't be afraid, Wikipedia:ANI is one place you can report someone if you feel I've done something wrong. I won't bite. I'm pretty sure I was just doing my job, but you are always welcome to get another opinion. Ask an admin, file a report, whatever you feel is best. I will not interfere in any way. By all means, please do file a report. Seriously. It is my goal that they can explain the situation better than I can. At this point, I don't think you are open to hear my opinions anyway, so go get an objective one. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Dennis, I have pointed this user to WP:DR as well mainly due to the personal attacks against you and the vandalism of your user page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good idea, thanks. I'm not taking it personal, he is new and just doesn't understand Wikipedia yet. For his own good, he needs to learn to tone it down so he can learn the guidelines and start contributing in a productive way. Sometimes they just need to go "report" and hear the gospel from an independent group, that honestly, is better at explaining it than I am. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I have read your explanation and I accept it. Sorry for my previous tone, but I assumed that you were just launching a personal attack. Bravo Plantation (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Not a problem. Wikipedia isn't easy to understand on your first day. If I can offer a suggestion: Rather than create articles, start out for a month or two by editing existing articles. Learn to add references, fix grammar, add content, work with others on a topic. Read up on the most important guidelines here (to me) notability, verification and reliable sources (oh, and WP:AGF ;). They are dry reading, and will take more than one go through, but they will give you better understanding of the basic criteria here. Besides, there are tons of existing articles that NEED tweaking, so you would be helping Wikipedia. I spend the vast majority of my time doing just that, improving other articles. After a few weeks, you will learn how to search out and make sure that an article you want to create doesn't already exist (ie: 80s Classics), in which case you can just work to improve it. You might also want to learn how to create and use your own WP:SANDBOX. The articles I have created, I always started them in a Sandbox, and worked on them for a few weeks before moving them into "mainspace" (the actual Wikipedia encyclopedia). That also lets you get others to help you, others with the same interests. My latest example would be Bob Timberlake (artist). I don't know anything about art, I just live in this area. I joined the WP:WikiProject North Carolina and someone there help me. After a few weeks, it went "live". We live, we learn. More importantly, we work together. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like our mutual friend has been indef'd: [1] —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have a beer on me by way of apology. Bravo Plantation (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kevin March (musician/producer)

Thanks for reviewing the page I made so quickly. I inserted a reference as you had requested. If there is anything else I can do to avoid the deletion of the page, it would be greatly appreciated that you contact me. I'm also working on cleaning up the difference between my page and Kevin March. Thank you for your time, -Tonyjfranco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyjfranco (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The discogs ref was broken. Actually, it is just an external link, which is ok, but it needs inline citations and a little more info on what makes him "notable", to avoid issues down the line with deletion. I removed the BLP Prod tag, and added a "needs more sources" tag. It appears he is notable, but it is always better if you can have references from reputable newspapers or websites actually talking about HIM, not just a bio or talking about him in passing. An interview or main article would be a good thing. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on finding additional sources. Thank you very much! I'm impressed at how quickly you respond/work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyjfranco (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Once more regarding the page, I believe he did a few interviews, one with DRUM magazine, and a few other puplications. I'll do my best to find them and reference them before the 10 day deadline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyjfranco (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Among The Leaves

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Starships (Song)

Something went wibble with your speedy tag here, the link on it is dead. Calabe1992 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking to disambiguation pages

FYI, I reverted this change of yours. Believe it or not, it actually is correct to link to a redirect in this circumstance. (I was surprised by this when I learned it too.) See "How to link to a disambiguation page" at WP:INTDABLINK, which says:

To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. (For use in navboxes, see the {{D'}} template.) There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader.

Just letting you know in case you happen to come across a similar situation in the future. —Caesura(t) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

    • Was just about to drop you a line to say thanks for the correction. Doesn't seem intuitive (as you point out, to you initially as well) but you are absolutely correct. Thanks for properly and kindly reverting my error. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rejection of Nomination of Friends (Band, Brooklyn) for deletion

The discussion you began regarding whether the article Friends (Band, Brooklyn) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted has been rejected by Milowent. While you are free to let the nomination stand, you might consider withdrawing the nomination. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article if you wish to withdrawn the nomination, instead simply state as such in the discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Up All Night Tour

have checked out the refs they cover all the info on the page what's wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdabowtheSecond (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • None of the refs used the phrase "Up All Night", which raises questions about the naming of the article, for starters. See WP:V. 13:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eliel Lazo

Hi Dennis. I've improved the article. Could you check again and remove the tags, please? The article now contains reliable references in multiple languages, which suggests that Lazo is a notable musician. You can take it to AfD if you disagree, but this musician in my opinion clearly meets our notability requirements. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Malicious reversion

Stop being an edit hoarder; none of the edits you've added to Grapefruit drug interactions has added to the article. Your claims are baseless that the citation is unsupported. Just bringing in someone who agrees with you is not a citation, nor has it improved the article, which ha many baseless claims on it. I merely tried to make the article clearer - you've made it purposefully more opaque. Harassing a nobody doesn't gain you points. The entire point of the fruitify citation is the supposition that bergamottin is the responsible agent. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The source does not even mention bergamottin. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I have replied to your latest posts on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg

File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I stumbled across User talk:Fastily/Archive 4#File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg, and, yes, I did nominate it for deletion because I presumed it as copyrighted without permission. Nevertheless, I wonder if you have received OTRS ticket for proof of authorship; if you want restoration, go to WP:REFUND. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I will just upload one that was unpublished so there won't be any question. That photo, as well as many thousands more like it, came out of my studio. I run the marketing dept. for that company, and have for 20 years, so literally, I'm the guy who decides what license our images go under. Speedy was just a little harsh for the file. I've uploaded many, many files from that studio under GPL, CC and PD previously without any issue, and wouldn't unless I had the ultimate authority on licensing. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Up All Night Tour

doesn't ref no.1 say it is a tour — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdabowtheSecond (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Position of {{stub}} tags

Hi, When you're adding a {{stub}} tag as you did at Laurence Kaye, please remember to put it at the end, after everything except inter-language links - see WP:FOOTERS. It makes it easier for anyone stub-sorting if it's in the standard place. Thanks. PamD 10:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Up All Night Tour

added "tour name" refs for notability is it good now and reconstructed sentences with refs. AdabowtheSecond (talk 04:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Kevin March (Musician/Producer)

Hey Dennis, hope all is well. I was wondering if the top "needs citations" box can be removed, now that the page seems to be in order. If I'm missing anything though, any guidance would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks. -Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyjfranco (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I removed two of the tags, but I still think that the BLP sources tags needs to stay, as there are enough sources to eek it by on notability, but there really needs to be more when found. I wouldn't worry too much, it just notes to others that it needs work, not that it needs deleting. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It Must be Nice

I have finally posted a comment in the section you started on my talk page, and I have also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice. You mention "communication problems": yes, indeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The talk page on the article is even worse. I'm hoping he will just report me to ANI for my 'transgressions', and I have encouraged him to do so. Sometimes it takes a good old fashioned boomerang to get someone's attention. Sadly, I don't think that will still be enough. Again, I think his faith is ok, but I sincerely doubt he has the capability to work and contribute here in a way the community expects. Even if he doesn't mean to, his actions are very disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. And yes, I did look at the talk page of the article before commenting, so I do know what you mean. It's a great pity, because this is clearly someone who is willing to put a significant amount of effort into working on Wikipedia, and who could perhaps be a useful contributor, if only they could overcome various problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Apologies on the msg I left on your talk page. Sometimes I just can't help myself, and I'm forced to try to find a little humor in what is otherwise a frustrating situation. And I agree, the majority of his contribs are good, he just has trouble playing nice with others. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi. I've reverted your removal of the new links added to It Must be Nice, as your reason was not valid. There is no prohibition against adding new references while an AfD is in progress - in fact it is encouraged - and it's certainly not the case that an article must be frozen at the start-of-AfD state. If anyone adds new references, they should be assessed during AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You might want to check the histories, it goes back a while. References were removed several times previously, by two different editors (including one admin, and actually, two admins have been looking it as well as you), because they failed WP:RS, not because the AFD was going on. Every deletion had a rationale given, and on the talk page I said that being in AFD didn't excuse the article's sources from passing WP:RS. I did not say that you can't add new references. His rationale was "those references already existed when you started the AFD", which was incorrect. I have reverted back, offering the previous rationale, that they are not reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, apologies if I misunderstood your "Those links were not there when the AFD was started" comment. But I do think that it's completely harmless leaving them in for the duration of the AfD - it's sure to be deleted anyway, and leaving them there would take away one of the battlefield aspects. Had they been left for people to actually review (as I did), I think we would have a better AfD with less room for people to mistakenly cry "cheat" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It happens, it isn't easy to tell what is going on without looking at a lot of history. No harm, no foul. If you check the totality of the histories, and accusations and bad faith, you will see why I'm bordering on ANI with the editor, something I've only done a couple times in 16k edits. I've asked two admins for their opinions in the matter (they are involved, so can't take action, but know the situation) If you feel like reading a load of history, your opinion would be welcome as well. I don't doubt the editor in question has made many good contributions over time and his intentions for Wikipedia are good, but he has some serious issues with working within a community, even before the AFD. Even good faith can't overcome consistent disruptive behavior. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The editor in question has a history of this sort of behaviour, and also (IMHO) a highly probable COI with respect to Chris Innis and Bob Murawski. Unfortunately, the tendency to personalize disagreements (and attack other editors) makes it difficult to reason with them. --Ckatzchatspy 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I have responded to your latest post on my talk page, but I may as well duplicate the substance of what I said here, as it is relevant to the discussion here. The editor's actions in the present case have been disruptive and vexatious, but not in themselves enough for any action to be taken, in my opinion. However, if, as is suggested above, the editor has a past history of similar problems, then the situation may be different. I would be grateful if anyone with more knowledge of the history of the case than me could give a few links to previous problems. If so, I will look at them and see what I think. As for ANI, I would not go there in the first instance. If there does seem to be a case for action then we can consider what to do, including possibly asking another admin to give an independent assessment. I would keep ANI in reserve, as a last resort. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I also don't see enough in the one AfD for any action, but if it is part of a longer-term behavioural problem, then there might be a case for something to be done - I'd recommend following JamesBWatson's suggestion. As for the AfD, I'd just ignore any further ranting - it's not going to save the article from deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Being human, when you see someone that disruptive standing so close to the edge, you can't help but to hope for a strong wind, or a gentle push...but I get your points that it is just short of action. This is why I asked for a few opinions, as I haven't gone to ANI very often. The big concern is whether or not he is capable of working within a cooperative environment. If there are strong COI issues, which has been discussed elsewhere, that might explain a lot. What is so bothersome is that all that time wasted could have been spent working on articles that are notable and just need work. Thanks for the opinions, all of you. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Being human, when you see someone that disruptive standing so close to the edge, you can't help but to hope for a strong wind, or a gentle push" - Hehe, yes, I understand exactly how you feel. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a note to say that, not having read this thread before with the suggestion to go to ANI as a last resort, I have opened discussion there [2]. I don't think there's a need to let this play out interminably, especially when an editor with ownership issues continues to traffic in rhetoric that isn't constructive. Cheers, 99.136.255.180 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A note on the COI - the article up for deletion is a film produced, directed, and co-written by Chris Innis, who is the spouse of Bob Murawski, who "heads up" Grindhouse Releasing. Catpowerzzz has quite an interest in these three topics, as can been seen under "Frequently Edited Pages" here. If Catpowerzzz were associated with Grindhouse Releasing, the COI would extend over to this film article concerning the spouse of the company's chief, and the behavior/"ownership" would make more sense. At least to me. What they do next is up to them, but I'm pretty sure there's an association with Grindhouse beyond a "fan" level. Hopefully that can be overcome. Doc talk 23:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Dennis Brown - I don't know why you are so obessed with this. I think you are taking this disagreement too far. I also don't appreciate the threats about pushing me off a cliff. I suggest we all just agree to disagree and stop this right now. As you mentioned you have other articles you want to be working on as do these other good users you've roped into commenting here. So do that! Please go work to contribute something positive rather than dwelling on one disagreement. That goes for the rest of you too. I think that would be a better way of spending your time, rather than making up false accusations against this user and repeatedly making comments on all these talk pages and Afd and Ani discussions, trying to trump up false charges and gin up buddies of yours to vote stack against me. Nothing that I have said or done with regard to trying to discuss the article you nominated for deletion warrants all this harassment and repeated submissions to both ANI and Afd. So please stop it now. Doc and Ckatz, I must also remind you all that it is against Wikipedia's guidelines to try to out a user's identity and to post these suggestions all over mutliple talk pages. It is seen as harassment, whether you are guessing or not. Doc, since I see by your block log that you were blocked recently in December, I would be careful. Someone has also accused you of being a sock puppet too. Thanks for your participation, but I don't think you want to get involved with these guys or this discussion if you weren't already, as it has been a heated one and you've seemingly already attracted quite a bit of your own heat recently. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, the block was an error and removed in the same minute it was applied: sometimes the wrong button gets pushed. The sock notice on my userpage is my own (a joke, you see), and while I was recently accused of being a sockpupppet, it was found to be baseless. So, trust me, I'm in no danger of getting into much trouble here. As I said before: without a COI, there is no identity to "out", even if that's what we were trying to do. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The situation is such that I would prefer you do not use my talk page for discussion of this matter, and instead use the ANI page. You are always welcome to use my talk page to discuss unrelated items, such as other articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dennis, I'm trying to defuse the situation which has been taken from one of a simple disagreement about sources of an article into you putting that article up for deletion, then making all kinds of false accusations in an ANI complaint and then threatening me and questioning my competency. That's too much! I have to use your talk page because that is where you are continuing a discussion about me (as if I can't see it). You don't seem content to limit your discussions to just one forum. I'm saying to you right now, on your talk page so I know you'll see it, that I would like you to please stop. That's all. Just please stop. Thanks. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You might notice that once the complaint was filed by a different user at ANI, I have not made a comment here and restricted myself to discussions at the AFD and at ANI. This isn't about attacking you, as I have said in those forums, I genuinely do believe that you believe the things you say. I think that you mean well when editing. I haven't ever accused you of malice, of intentionally doing anything to hurt someone, even though many of your comments have been less than flattering. That isn't the issue. I'm just an ordinary editor, never applied to be an admin. I work in every area cleaning up, in particular "small" projects, usually because no one else will. I don't own any article here, have no interest in being a big shot, having any special influence, I don't know anyone here personally (nor care to), nor am I a particularly gifted author or photographer. I just try to do what is best for Wikipedia, to the best of my ability. At this time, what is best is that this conversation takes place at the ANI, not on my talk page. I'm asking you to respect this simple request. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If you think I mean well when editing, then please stop with all the accusations. That's all I'm asking. I'm sure you mean well too and somehow we just misunderstood each other. It happens. I agree that we should do what is best for Wikipedia -- which is that everyone should just chill out and walk away from the argument. I will respect your request to not comment here if this discussion ends here. If you want to just call it a wash and say right now that we "agree to disagree," that this was all a misunderstanding of each person's good faith efforts, then we can call this spat officially "over." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me lay this out one final time, being 100% honest and direct, and I don't want to rehash it. For real. You keep pushing this, so have the courtesy to read it in full before passing judgement. Honestly, it may take reading it more than once.

I can't stop the ANI page even if I wanted to, I didn't start it, someone else did. I can't stop an AFD even if I want to because others have already discussed it. There is nothing "started" that I have the capacity to end. I told you, I'm just an editor like you, with no special powers. Even if I could, I wouldn't. Not out of some vendetta, or grudge or anger, but out of concern for Wikipedia. Just as you believe the things you believe, I believe you are not well suited to participate in a cooperative environment like Wikipedia and your participation is a liability rather than an asset. I don't say this to be mean, degrading or to insult you, it is just my opinion. Many fine people aren't well suited to work in a corroborative environment like this. I believe that you are just one of them.

This thread is a perfect example. I've been as nice as I can in asking you to please not take the conversation here, but you have shown you are not capable of restraining yourself even in this simple request. Twice. Your conversations in the talk pages show a level of stress and frustration that goes beyond the average heated discussion. Others in the ANI are not convinced as I am that you lack the self-restraint to participate in discussions, so it isn't a done deal just because I have expressed the opinion. Continuing to talk here after being asked multiple times not to, however, strengthens my argument, not yours.

You keep thinking that people are attacking or threatening you, when in fact, you are just very much outside your element. So much so that you don't even recognize it. For instance, you accuse me of attacking you repeatedly. Ok, that is a claim that can be searched. In my case, I have over 16,000 edits, over 5 years here, and every bit of it can be researched with a couple mouse clicks. I have no history of such, and no one has perceived my actions here to be threatening except you. No one. Your claims are so wild that most people think you are doing it to be malicious, bordering on a vandal. I don't think so, and have said as much, many times.

To be clear, I've never even seen Ckatz or Doc before this issue, at least not that I remember. I've worked on a few things with JamesBWatson, but only in the last month. (I always have an admin or two in my watchlist, because I NEED a 2nd opinion for my own work) You might also notice that in my request at James' page, I asked him to make sure I wasn't overstepping my boundaries, I wasn't asking him to agree with me. I've never worked on any one else in these discussion, ever. You know why it LOOKS like we know each other? Because we individually know how to work together, following the guidelines at Wikipedia to the best of our abilities, and put Wikipedia ahead of our own pet projects. What you see as a "conspiracy" is actually what normal strangers do when they all participate using the same rules. THIS is what makes Wikipedia work.

There is literally no one who agrees with your perspective in this matter, no one. You are alone. The only person who revert me, later apologized to me and I ended up leaving the edits in anyway, as a compromise (this is the team thing I keep referring to, I disagreed, but backed off for him). It doesn't matter who is wrong or right in the matter, at least not to him or I, because the project is more important than one silly reversion. At some point, when faced with this kind of overwhelming opposition, a rational person has to at least ask themselves "Is it me?".

You have constantly taken things out of context, see them as the worst possible scenario. An example? My hoping for "a strong breeze or gentle push". ONLY YOU saw that as a call to violence. Everyone else saw it as me saying that you are 1 inch from getting into trouble and I was just wanting you to go ahead and get it over with because I was tired of dealing with you. I'm human, I get irritated, too. Doesn't mean I hate you, just that, well, you can be very aggravating at times. Seriously, no rational person would have seen that as a threat of violence, which is my point: you have great difficulty being rational in conversations at Wikipedia. Not because you are mean or bad or dumb, quite the contrary. I keep saying it, but I don't think the problem is malice, just that you are not well suited to working in this kind of environment. You and everyone else are free to disagree with my assessment, I never claimed it was "The Truth(R)" or the opinion of anyone else.

This is why I don't walk away. Once the wheel starts moving, it doesn't stop until the community as a whole has had the opportunity to create a consensus. It is my obligation to the community to respectfully and honestly say and do what I believe is best for Wikipedia. And I have, with no regrets.

Finally (sorry so long, but I'm trying to be clear about all of this), let me offer you a bit of advice. Real advice. Don't post about the situation outside of the ANI, let the process work, live with the result, and try to learn from the experience, whatever the outcome. I can honestly say I have no idea what that outcome will be because I have virtually no experience in ANI or disciplinary settings at Wikipedia. Not something I ever want to become an expert at.

Now I have to go to bed, as I have to get up in few hours, having sacrificed two hours of sleep in an attempt to actually help you understand, if not for you, so that I will know that I really did everything I could to help you understand. I sincerely hope it has a positive effect. And please, no more talk here. You are free to copy and paste to the ANI and say whatever you want about it there. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Dennis, I did not post to your talk page until today. There have been no rants, except yours. I came here to try to talk to you and reason with you. However, you seem entirely incapable of walking away from this argument and "chilling out" which is really what you need to do. I begged you today in two short paragraphs to please just "STOP" with all the toxic comments. But you can't stop yourself. You just keep going! I don't get what you are trying to prove. If anyone agreed to what you were saying, the Afd would have been closed by now and the article would have been deleted. It's been over a week now. You keep saying that the second duplicate ANI discussion on the very same topic was submitted by someone else, and it was if you count an anonymous IP or a "retired" user. Same thing there. I'm still here contributing and pretty much wasting a lot of time trying to defend myself from your unreasonable attacks. Just relax, take a deep breath and move on. Really. It's just not that important!. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Goodwill, The Amity Group

The page I am attempting to create keeps getting a redirect. I am referencing from a written book, it was published in 1985 and it is about the history of Amity Group which later went on to become a member of Goodwill International, it is an independent member of the international social enterprise known as Goodwill. Does this help. There is great history and a good story to be told. The author is Guy Jones from Victoria BC.

  • You need to start it in a sandbox. Look up in the right side of the window, you will see "sandbox". This is a space that no one will mess with. Create it there, add sources, get input from others if you need, and when you think it is ready to be a part of the regular Wikipedia, have someone review it and move it into mainspace for you. This is how most editors create articles here. This way no one bothers you while it is being built, and you can get the input of others. Otherwise, if you just release a few sentences into the wild, it will likely be deleted or redirected. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay can you check out my sandbox for me. see if Im doing this correct? thanks

Montague22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC).


Return to an earlier discussion...

If you want a break from "It Must be Nice", you may like to look at my latest contribution to an earlier discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombies

If it returns again, I'll AfD it (if you don't get there first...). Actually, I've been told off before now for AfDing things that looked obvious CSD. You never know what people are going to say or do... Peridon (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Anyone who complains about going to AFD (many eyes) instead of CSD (two sets of eyes) is simply wrong. It is the "safer" way to delete an article and give the opportunity to fix the problems. If there is a lot of detail and many references that exist (unreliable but not facebook/twitter), then AFD is really the better way to go. It isn't like we have to delete it today or Wikipedia breaks. I'm fine either way, but I will always AFD when there is that much info, giving a little benefit of the doubt. If it was two paragraphs and no sourcing, then yes, obviously CSD. This wasn't the case here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Missed it - Boing! deleted it within five minutes of creation. PS I like ham too - but it's diced tikka chicken in my omelette tonight. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the first time the article was created [3], he was in high school. Maybe just trying to overcompensate now. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think they changed the rules somewhere around then, 'cos we're advised NOT to quote in the summary. Could be someone different. Peridon (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kind of defeats the purpose of deleting a negative BLP when you put the entire article in the summary. I didn't necessarily think it was him, I just found it humorous and somewhat ironic. :) Dennis Brown (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Paving Wall Street tags

On book notability, WP:BK:

"The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews."

The article cited five reviews, with links to most of them. Can you explain how this still flunks WP:BK?

As for "too many links": The article main text has only two. Most of the other links are either to sources (URLs to source text, links to publishers, links to articles about authors of the reviews). Vernon L. Smith is linked twice, I now notice, but with the effort it took you to add the tag, you might have simply unlinked the second mention. (Which I'll do right now. Satisfied?)

As for "could require cleanup" -- Look: it's one sentence long. There's no garbage to take out yet.

As for the inline citations tag: the article is currently one sentence long, a sentence that says it's a book, and most of the remaining references are clearly to reviews of this (clearly existing) book. I'm pretty quick on the draw with adding that particular tag to articles, but in this case, its references are already blindingly clear. When the article expands and goes into more detail requiring inline-citation support, I'll be happy to start adding citations (which I enjoy doing). Until then, adding even one seems pointless: the book exists, as reviews attest. The very first reference listed is for a review of the book.

Finally, I tagged the article as an economics stub. Doesn't that say just about everything necessary about the current state of the article?

So: I'm taking down EVERY SINGLE ONE of your tags on this article. In the meantime, thanks SO much for your help. Yakushima (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI on current ANI

[4] Yakushima (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, referring to a comment you left at another editor's talk p., if there are people here whom I do not care for as an editor at Wikipedia (which is probably what you meant), you're not among them. If I disliked everyone I've been on the opposite side of an AfD with, the people left would be those who never contribute to AfD. (I'd have emailed this if your email had been activated.) DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your candor and have no problem discussing it publicly. I didn't take offense, nor mean any offense in my observation. The perception wasn't based on which side of discussions we were on (we agree way more than disagree anyway). I never let this perception affect my willingness to work with, or recommend your skills to other editors. I used to ask your opinion more often, knowing you would not blindly agree with me, but instead you would be unbiased and say if I my actions were too strong or inappropriate, the key to improving. The (incorrect) perception was not based on any one action, but just a 'vibe' over the last year. You seemed more and more frustrated with me, so I left well enough alone and only ask help from you when I knew you were really the best admin for a task, like today. I didn't take offense, as not everyone is going to "click" with everyone else. But it is good to know that my perception was wrong. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Regards to your advise

Hey Mr. Brown,

Thank you for the assistance. I may bother you again in case of any difficulty. Hope to get assistance from you again. Thanks again ..

Aditya.brother (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • No problem. I understand the urge to jump in head first, but I have found it is better to go a little slower and learn about the culture here before creating articles that end up getting deleted, that is why WP:AFC is a great place to start. Good luck to you. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have a newsletter

I do have an intermittent LiveJournal (where I am also Orangemike) and am on Facebook under my real name. I haven't done a new issue of my science fiction fanzine in over a decade, although I do contribute to our local amateur press association MilwAPA occasionally. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Was just my way of agreeing that there is too many trivial articles here to properly police. At best, these individual fight articles should be combined down into one article. It is like people who create an article for every song on an album even if it isn't a single, and use the same argument "it exists!!!!11". But now you have me intrigued. I use my real name everywhere because real privacy is impossible if you use the internet. That, and I'm old and just don't care what the neighbors think. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Shotwikilock.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shotwikilock.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:44SMW-patch.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:44SMW-patch.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You want evidence? Fine....

Here's your evidence, are you happy now? [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. And notice how the two IPs you see here are not only identical, but have also been banned as sockpuppets. Also, look at this [[10]] and you'll see both IPs have edited this. 88.109.31.145 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, and it's clearly there. And the case is still in moderation....CheckUser is optional and means nothing to the fact as to deciding whether the guy is a sockpuppet or not. 88.109.31.145 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It is an ANI now, please take the conversation there. The way you are dealing with the concerns is counter to how it is normally done at Wikipedia, to the point of being disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness SAKES!! This guys other sockpuppets have been blocked without question. It's been blatantly OBVIOUS they are sockpuppets! Why are you being so difficult? LOOK at those IPs TALK pages, or their HISTORY, and you'll SEE. 88.109.31.145 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Read this, NOW!!

[[11]]. There. There is your proof that Alison is a sockpuppet. 88.109.31.145 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Time Zones

Did you know Dennis That The time where i am Currently is 2:13 PM (New Zealand Time)?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Contribs

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Scottdelaney1067's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alison_Buchanan/Archive

See? I told you they were a sockpuppet. 85.210.178.153 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • That wasn't the issue. I believed you. But the way you went about handling it was more disruptive than the sockpuppet, which is why you were blocked. I would strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the proper procedure or you will get blocked again. Two wrongs don't make a right. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • oh, and don't revert user's talk pages. They are free to delete any content they want. Reverting a legitimate blanking of a users talk page is disruptive. It isn't your job to police her talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but nobody EVER complained before. Nobody had an issue when I pointed out her other accounts, and nobody had a problem when I prevented her from deleting her page. Heck, nobody had a problem with ANY of the edits I have made against vandals and sockpuppets, including the infamous Komodo Lover. Only you have had any issues with what I am doing. Nobody else. Why, I fail to understand. Are you trying to encourage vandalism and sockpuppeting? Nobody else has had a problem with believing me, ONLY you. 88.109.27.76 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback // My response in the article talk page

==[[ SeeTalkGrow ]] restored==

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. CandleOfFaith (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC) --CandleOfFaith (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC events

When the situation calms down (or even before then if you want), would you be willing to do a peer review of 2012 in UFC events? You aren't heavily involved in MMA articles and have only gotten involved though AfDs of various articles. If this concept is going to be continued to full year articles (2012 in mixed martial arts) and for past years, I'd be interested in hearing from a somewhat uninvolved person how the articles could be further improved on. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I will do what I can. I have commented in a few places with the goal of opening a few minds, but there are many who simply hate change, so it will take some time and patience. I don't have an exact picture in my head of how it should be done, but I do think you and Mtking are moving the right direction, in spite of a lot of close minded opposition. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, you like the rule book right? Well, here you go! WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellently written

This is excellently written, much better than I could have done. If people will listen is another story, but let's not go there. I personally would have linked moved forward without you to WP:5THWHEEL , but that might be a little harsh (or not). Well done. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I've posted in a few places, a bit of a velvet hammer, if you will. I don't contribute content to MMA, and I'm hoping that that some people will listen simply because I'm objective, an old timer here and not an admin. Most won't, but change will be easier if we can change the momentum from negative, to contributory, of a few people at a timer. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it is what was needed, that and your follow up. I'm not an MMA person myself (not since I watched UFC 1 on an illegal PPV box shhhhh). Everyone finds change difficult, on and off wiki, I think you've done a great service with your comments, heeded or not. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann". Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Udar55 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 UFC events

Alright I did some work on it. How's the page looking so far? Any suggestions? Glock17gen4 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm no expert, but it seems to be shaping up nicely. Keep in mind that it may change in format several times before it is all said and done, so don't get too attached to any one way of doing things. Just keep a cool head and talk about it on the talk page. Sometimes several ways are tried, and they end up going back to the first way. It is all part of the process. As you may or may not have noticed, I don't actually contribute to the content on the articles anyway, my function here is mainly to help the transition go more smoothly and help people understand the reasons for the changes. You know 100x more about MMA than I will ever know, so there isn't much I can do to help you with the actual content. Your positive attitude toward the changes is very much appreciated. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yea I expect more changes, hopefully a name change from "2012 in UFC events" to "UFC events in 2012" will happen, because right now it's having trouble being listed on search engines. Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The place to bring that up at is at the main MMA page, not on that page, since it will affect every page in the project, not just that page. Most of these omnibus article start with the year, rather than end with the year, but I don't think that it is required. Not something I have enough experience with to have a definite answer for. I'm fine with either name. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


User Scottdelaney1067

It looks like you've had some interaction with this user. Any idea what he's up to with his peculiar editing activity? Mojoworker (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • His talk page request have been "different" as well, and I've tried to be as helpful as possible. It is one of two things, and I'm just not sure which. I *think* it is innocent enough, and perhaps a young or extraordinarily inquisitive individual attempting to participate at a level beyond their current capability. I hadn't been watching the contribs, just the talk, but it seems time to have someone quietly assess the situation. If you have a 'go to' guy, go to, otherwise I can. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That's fine, HJ must be busy off–wiki. Looks like Scottdelaney1067 hasn't been editing either, so maybe we can wait a bit longer. I think your assessment of him is likely correct and his editing is probably innocent enough, but I too worry about his competence. What I don't know where that line is drawn – I guess that's where an admin can help, otherwise I'd just say we should talk to him directly. Mojoworker (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Looks like HJ hasn't been very active recently. He must be busy. But Scott Delaney hasn't edited either, so maybe he's grown bored with Wikipedia... Mojoworker (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dennis

Just a brief note to thank you for taking the time to read the BMW R1100GS 'talk' and noticeboard and Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban - I appreciate that that's a lot of reading! And when a particular editor is throwing violation codes around it's always good to get someone's clear minded and objective view of things. (And, hopefully, the other Dennis won't seek out this brief communication I've made with you and use it to accuse me of some other kind of violation! Who knows...). Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't expect an issue. I asked him to provide diffs and he hasn't. You both have gotten equally snippy at times, but this happens in discussions and a degree of it is expected and should be tolerated. It is obviously your call, but I recommend you refrain from any further comment at that ANI, just leave it alone to die its own natural death. The content dispute doesn't belong there anyway. As to the merits of the content dispute, I have no opinion nor desire to dig far enough into it to have one. That is what WP:DR is for. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at UFC on FX 4. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You have been given ample opportunity see view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 where it was deleted via a consensus in a public forum. If you continue to revert what has already been decided at AFD, you risk being blocked for disruptive behavior. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC) You do realize that UFC on FX 4 was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4, and that my edit was consistent with the closing of that article?

131.123.122.38

Just to let you know that whole range has now been blocked by MuZemike see here; obviously policy means it cant be linked to a named account, but it is obvious which of the MMA socks it is. Mtking (edits) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

as it is across the whole range you need to look at Special:Contributions/131.123.122.0/23 Mtking (edits) 22:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, I figured something like that 5 minutes after I wrote that, but then I had to go cook tacos. With all this petty stuff going on, you might want to recruit some more experienced people for help in formatting and presenting a larger argument for an RfC. Part of the problem is having too many arguments, valid or not, that confuses the issue. The last thing you need is someone picking apart your weakest argument, when you would have been better off not even mentioning it. It just makes for distraction, and there will be enough socks there that more distraction won't be needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I accidentally hit rollback while trying to view diffs in my watchlist.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

While I sympathise with you motives, I do not see Dispute Resolution is going to help in the slightest, as given Udar55 off wiki comments at the Sherdog forums, he is not likely to accept anything other than the standalones, I have asked Beeblebrox for his comments, but from my POV these stand alone articles are not notable, they fail the NOTNEWSPAPER policy and countless other guidelines and I think they should be deleted, I have never been completely sold on the idea of the omnibus article, as I feel most of the content (the fight stats etc) is just Fancruft (a pov enhanced by the actions and comments on the Sherdog forums), and have supported it as the only viable compromise. However if you feel that the Mediation Cabal can help resolve this then please give it a go, but lets get on with this. Mtking (edits) 06:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • We don't have much of a choice here, either accept the minority view, or pursue further opinions, so just let me know. You and TG should take the lead since you know the sport better than I, and I will be happy to participate or help in any way I can. Let me know. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I do not intend to actively seek to drive this forward now, I have wasted two much time and feel that as there is no clear policy or guideline path trough this, what ever route is taken, the side of the debate that feels hard done by will not accept the process. Therefore upon my return from a business trip I will not feel any obligation to refrain from nominating any MMA article I feel fails policy for deletion. Mtking (edits) 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - An invitation

I'm not exactly sure which editors who have been involved in the original discussions I should notify of this - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland - but rather than mistakenly leave out, I'll instead include. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, hi, I genuinely wasn't aware that that was classed as canvassing because in the discussions concerning this before I was advised to notify the editors that had contributed to relevant discussions - and also that notifications via 'talk' pages were okay. As I said in the 'talk' page messages to the editors involved, I wasn't exactly sure of who should or should not be notified so rather than make the mistake of not notifying the people involved I instead notfied them all - as far as I'm aware there were none left out. So really it wasn't a case of selective picking and choosing, it's just that of the editors previously involved all seemed to have their own ideas on the subject which they came to independentally. Rivercard (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
(I'm sure that in the original Noticeboard discussion someone pointed out that notifications via 'talk' pages wasn't classed as canvassing, but I'll make sure I the double-check that.) Thanks, Rivercard (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've just had a check through and the only one I can see that wasn't notified was someone called 842U, but this was an editor who seemed heavily in favour of the case I was putting so I think that shows that I wasn't trying to be selective. Also, I found the quote on the original Noticeboard discussion where I was fisrt accused that says, 'His [meaning mine] "canvasing" wasn't canvasing, it was on the talk page of someone who had already participated in the DR 4 days ago.' I genuinely took that to mean that 'talk' page notifications were within bounds. Regards,
Rivercard (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I wasn't scolding you, just informing you and pointing to the guideline on it. You said you weren't sure who to notify, and it is common for people to not know the policy on it. If you had only selected certain editors (even if random) it would have come back and caused problems, so as a general rule, it is just better to tell anyone that participated, as a preventative measure. I really didn't think you were trying to canvas, I just didn't want you to get accused of it. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Glad that's cleared up! Rivercard (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi. Again, I'm not exactly sure on notifications - this time re: if a message goes out automatically to those involved in discussing a case or not? Not sure. So, just in case, I'll just drop this brief note that I've left a response to your message on the ANI board. Regards.
    Rivercard (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Messages don't automatically go out for discussions, it is assumed that if someone has already started participating, they will watch that page. It isn't required that you notify when you respond in that way, although sometimes it is fine to. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Award for stalking User:JamesBWatson

The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
For being a wonderful stalker at Jamees' talk page and making people almost believe that either you would be a very good friend in real life or you might be obsessed with him! ;) Yasht101 23:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For supporting the Special:UnwatchedPages discussion Mrlittleirish 13:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time

I apologise. I never really thought about how raising the issue in two different places would look to others, and you're right that I should have linked the SPI case. Thanks for your input. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • No harm, no foul. I didn't think you were trying to do anything bad, I was just concerned because someone else might. The issue is that there are too few admins, so many of us non-admins with years of experience will work at ANI to help out. Most issues can be handled without admin tools anyway. In the future, it helps if you post links to any other actions you have outstanding with the editor, such as the SPI. If the editor had been really over the line and it needed quicker action, then ANI would have been the right place to be, with disclosure. His actions were kinda rude but not enough so to get a block, if he wasn't a sock, which is what I have to assume as I'm not the SPI clerk and the case wasn't brutally obvious. You're a great contributor, don't let others drag you into being a little snarky. Yes, there are times in discussions that I would love to choke the stuffing out of another editor, but I've learned that ignoring the rudeness (ie: not taking the bait) serves me better at convincing the other editors who haven't !voted yet. You were never really rude to him, but the tone did distract from the strength of your argument. This might give an outsider fodder to judge the messenger, instead of the merits of the message. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

About that interaction ban...

So there are no open disputes between me and Rivercard, and the current version of BMW R1100GS is exactly what he wanted. I intend to research further references and will probably have to seek formal mediation at some point in the future. But I can't get the guy off my talk page. He keeps finding new things to pick fights over. Is there some way to get an interaction ban without going through an entire round of point-counterpoint? I don't want to start yet another endless noticeboard discussion. I want to leave the issue closed until an article edit is in dispute, and a formal process is in place to prevent length of comments from exploding out of all reason. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I will drop a note on Rivercard's talk page asking him to avoid your talk page. More than likely, that will be enough. If it isn't, and if you are patient, then yes you can get him to stop (excepting valid templates, etc.). It is your talk page. If he continues, reply to his post with something like "I appreciate your opinions, but please don't post on my talk page." and say nothing else. You might have to do this several times, making it polite but stronger. Never reply with anything other than this type of statement, no matter how tempted you are. If after 4 or 5 times, if he keeps adding to your talk page, then you go to ANI with a short, non-emotional complaint that is simply "An editor and I simply don't get along and have been involved in several disputes, so I decided to simply avoid him. I've asked him on 5 different times to not post on my talk page but he won't quit. (insert the diffs here). I'm asking for an interaction ban." I'm guessing it won't come to that, and that after a time or two he will just leave you alone. You're both good editors, you just don't get along. It happens. I have learned (the HARD WAY) that the easiest way to get into trouble at ANI or discussions is to be too verbose and/or emotional. Always keep it simple, clean, without opinion or emotion, state the facts, provide diffs. Long rambling complaints make admins want to skip over and let someone else handle it. It isn't easy to do sometimes, but it is the most effective way to get results. At ANI, they (we) don't care how you FEEL about it, they care about wrong or right, and finding a quick solution. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 00:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Biotechnology in Maryland

FYI, JoelWhy's edits are up for Biotechnology in Maryland. I made some changes, too. Please consider re-reading new version and weighing in before tomorrow's close date if possible. Thanks for all your help in teaching a relative "newbie" the ropes. Ferddog (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (I was Mdbizauthor, name change)

  • Excellent work! I've stuck my Delete, added a Keep, and asked the closing admin to consider the diffs between the nom and the current article. I would imagine it would be kept. If not, you could go to WP:DRV and I would be happy to participate. It is a completely different article now. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Wonderful - thanks, Dennis. Really appreciate all your help on this. On a side note, I think you would make an excellent admin - your patience, open-mindedness and willingness to help others make you a great candidate. If there's anything I can do to help just let me know. Ferddog (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

When you run, please paste this into the appropriate place for me:


  • Strong support


Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was kidding, of course. I will keep an eye open and weigh-in at the RfA. From what I see, you can easily handle a mop, and also one of those cool floor buffers too, and we've all seen in movies how those can get away from ya. :) Seriously, you will do well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Glad you were kidding, I was wondering if you were trying to trick me into undermining my own RfA. Guess that would have been a good test, if I was dumb enough to copy and paste, then I wouldn't be worthy to wield the mop. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course I was kidding. I'm so sorry. Bad joke. RfA is no joking matter. Plus, I set a bad example, with bad consequences.
In total seriousness, you have the skills, but that is obvious. More important is the demeanor. You have the right character:
What do all good admins have in common? Common conduct and behaviour, and a certain way. They are very similar to airplane pilots, who all have the same character. No wild talk. Self control. No loose cannons. Trustworthy. You have that exact character. And that's the right stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Now you're going to give me the bighead ;) Thank you for kind words, it really means a lot when your peers appreciate your efforts. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nom nom nom

You now have my nomination. If you want to reorganise the page so you are accepting both noms, then I think it's ready for transclusion.

Last tip - if someone gives you negative feedback, don't argue with them. Thank them for the feedback. If one of your supporters argues with them, don't let it get out of hand. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops - I kind of reorganised it anyway on the basis Dennis was accepting - sorry for being presumptive. Let me know if you want me to transclude or feel free to just go for it! Pedro :  Chat  20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I just transcluded, but another set of eyes is always good. I don't see it on the list yet. Yeah, I noticed the EC, no prob :) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't transcluded, but was fixed removing the subst: etc.. I've added it to main RFA page now for you. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
They deliberately keep the instructions obscure to keep people off the page I reckon :) Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I was waiting for "You fail! Try again in 6 months!" ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


RFA is live

Well, as you probably already know, I'm running the gauntlet as the RfA is live. Thanks again for the feedback and truly overwhelming support, and yes, for the deserved critical points that were politely expressed. Those of you that have been around me know that I'm not always right, but I will admit when I'm wrong and try to put the best interests of Wikipedia first. I hope everyone here participates, even those with reservations about me becoming an admin because every voice should be heard and every concern should be addressed. Regardless of the outcome, I'm truly humbled by the outpouring of support shown here. Thanks again. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mtking (edits) 07:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopelesscross

Many thanks for your help in trying to talk to Hopelesscross. Of course, whether he responds to your encouraging appeal is his choice; the point is there is no way he would have listened to me, any remarks I submit on his talk page are instantly removed - but this is something we have established is permitted. Time will tell now if he wishes to discuss his proposals or merely exert his energy in implementing his favoured edits. You're also right that I do not appreciate being told I have a "fetish", I'll let sleeping dogs lie for the time being and we'll all see what comes of his future contributions. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm glad you have the right attitude. This situation was one that I could tell you made several mistakes, even if in good faith, and didn't want to see either of you blocked. You might want to bone up a little on a few guidelines from time to time, as they can and do change. And if you ever have a question about whether you should or shouldn't do something like a revert, feel free to just ask me or any admin. I had no desire to get involved in the content of the article, I just want everyone to get along in a fair manner so you can jointly decide what that content will be. And as a favor, if someone is new, work with them, keep it simple, and help them get up to speed on the guidelines. You will end up making an ally for life most of time. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, everyone needs to be given a fair chance so nobody gets the block. In my case Dennis, I'm not a new editor - I've been here for about as long as you; even so, I still landed myself with a short block for an indirect remark that one user with whom I had running issues had "learning difficulties". Interestingly it was sent in passing whilst communicating with another editor but still, I was horrified when I found myself unable to edit. My appeal - which apologised and pledged not to use such term again - was successful and the ban was lifted after 45 minutes but I do know how easy it is to be blocked. Now although it is not honestly my place to comment, I have the strangest of feelings our "new" friend may not be as fresh to this venture as we think. Four days, 40 edits, knowledge on how to cite examples and consult ANI, and what WP:OR is and all charged with a vision for the articles: one article moved without consensus and this episode on Slavic peoples in which he is for one reason or another denying pan-ethnic status. If I'm wrong, then he must surely know someone who edits and will have seen them in action. For me, I'll be honest, even I was contemplating whether to restore my version each time he reverted; it is not so much the edit war that is the problem but whether according to rules my actions are correct and as you say - rules are often amended and even established editors can get caught out if following obsolete guidelines. My decision at the moment to insist on my revision is that the pronominal article sees a lot of activity from a host of editors and - like many articles - has its own fair share of disagreement on presentation. The latest talks have been on the infobox gallery: who should be on and who shouldn't? If not why not? Do we even need to have it? And so on. Now if this panethnicity topic had been even a minor issue, somebody among the regulars will have voiced concerns and dealt with it by now, this is why I believed myself to be acting correctly in restoring that revision. Obviously you see I have been accused of allowing my own "Pan-Slavist" sentiment to cloud my judgement as an editor, in truth, I don't hold firmly onto anything. I only wish to see one good argument to support the alternative version and I will start working towards a new balanced verison immediately. I recently worked closely with User:Mdupont to achieve a neutral outlook on Tringa Hysa. Either way, we'll just hang fire and see how things progress. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Very likely he has done some editing before, but it might have been as an IP. In this case, it was complicated by you doing a few things that could have gotten you blocked, vandal tagging and reverting. Basically, in order to save you, I had to save you both, so I had to assume the best of faith in both of you. Plus, it was a content dispute, which didn't belong at ANI, but on the talk page. It wasn't your fault that he brought it there, but you might notice I took great pains to NOT get involved in the content, that is for the editors there to discuss, not admins at ANI. If there is another issue with him, just drop me a note here. Hopefully it will be more one sided ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, thank you very much, you're a star! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

please remove your rfa

WP:DENY. Dennis Brown ® © 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

you can't be an admin in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanky The Warrior (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You've already expressed your opinion at the RFA - and not very well at that ("because I can" - what does that mean?). There's no need to come here as it adds nothing to what you've already said. It also seems a bit strong coming from a person who just recently created an account. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to focus more on editing and learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines than badgering other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. His opinion is duly noted. And to his credit, a look at his contribs indicates he has mastered the details of how to edit here quite well for someone who has been here less than a week. Its almost like he's done it for years. Dennis Brown ® © 23:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I wonder whose sock he is..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Didn't take you long to figure it out. Are you going to remove his !vote from the RFA?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No one will be removing anything at this point. Removing that vote would be the last step in the process, if it ever happened. Dennis Brown ® © 00:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no sooner had I written my comment, Elen effectively struck the !vote without "removing" it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that was some fast process!!! Dennis Brown ® © 00:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of regulars that try to disrupt RFAs - it had to be one of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I was looking at my own usual suspects and came up dry. If I only had better tools.... ;) Dennis Brown ® © 00:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but...

WP:RIGHTNOW Ishdarian 13:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • That is very kind of you, but just think of all the drama and sockpuppeting we would miss out on. After all, it has been a rather civil and uneventful RfA. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 13:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • ^Oops. I guess you shouldn't have said that. It's now a fucking drama fest. Brilliant. I'm chucking in the tools for a while after it's over, whichever way it goes. I actively hate this place right now, with all the disingenuous "oh-so-clever" two faced fuck-witted tossers around here. . </rant> Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    Don't let them drive you away, Pedro - you're one of the good guys who we really need to keep -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    Who is the "them" we're talking about here? Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    YOU Malleus, very specifically. I'm pissed of dancing around you like I'm on a sword. So if you fancy one for the civility police - fuck you and your two faced attitude and your oh so clever games. And take that "semi retired" notice of your talk page. That was the usual load of bullshit that the rest of the community could smell a mile off. I've danced to your tune too long, and I'm bored of it.Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I see. Well, you'll be no great loss with that kind of attitude. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I think I phrased that badly, and did not mean to imply agreement with the above description of anyone - I should have said something more like "Don't let your current feelings drive you away". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry. I meant it as a joke, but I feel like I ripped open Pandora's box. Ishdarian 02:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing good

2 Days have passed and there is 89% support. Thats great. I hope that this tempo continues for 4 more days. There has been little drama out there but it is okay (at least you don't have drama on your talk page). You will get through probably. All the best! Yasht101 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Contemplating RfA - Requesting feedback

Obviously, I'm at RfA now. Thanks for the humbling amount of support and constructive criticism. Whether I get the mop or not, it has been an great learning experience. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

I'm contemplating an WP:RfA and requesting feedback from any registered editor who cares to give an opinion. In short, I've been here over 5 years, took a wikibreak a few years back (burned out a bit) and came back. I've got over 17k edits, never been blocked, and have learned a great deal by contributing at Wikipedia that has helped in my real life. I've worked in admin areas to get my feet wet and noticed a seeming shortage of admins available for vandalism and such. I've never been the greatest author, but I did start High Rock Lake, Bob Timberlake (artist), Lexington Barbecue Festival and Pigs in the City (and others), which are all regional to my new home in NC. I've uploaded a lot of original photography, (and have much more still to upload) which is likely one of my better contributions. Like anyone, I make mistakes but quick to admit them. What I'm hoping for in this discussion is for some folks to look back a little at my history, offer guidance and an honest opinion (even if brutal) if you think this would be in the best interest of myself and Wikipedia. If I do go to RfA, I will notify every registered editor in good standing who participates here, although there is no obligation to participate. I will be asking specific editors to come here, but any editor who happens upon this is welcome to chime in. If you are willing to nom (some have already expressed an interest) please indicate. In the interest of disclosure, I've talked to another admins about his previously [12], which is still in my archives. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw your notice of this thread on another editor's user talk, which happened to be on my watchlist. You've made a few posts on admin boards which appeared very sensible to me, and they suggested to me you might have good judgment. On that basis I'd encourage you to explore a bid more seriously. I think it would be correct for you to expand a bit on the very short resume of your work you've included above. Also what admin work you would do. Include any controversies or disputes you've been in. Your comments above seem to be hyper-aware of the risk of canvassing, and that's a good thing. If you've done anything special since November 2011 to overcome the objections mentioned in the thread you cite above, you could mention what you've done differently since then. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I archive talk, log my CSDs and PRODs, slow down and research better before entering AFD/CSD, and have generally tried to research more before I offer an opinion. Nothing radical, just being more thoughtful before I act. I have gotten more involved with ANI, learning to help others and settle disputes peacefully. In a nutshell, I've tried to be more objective in what I do. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Since few weeks, I have been stalking watching your edits since you and James had a small fight with each other. And, you are certainly a good editor. You will do great as an admin according to me. I m really surprised that why haven't you gone for RfA yet. Yasht101 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't remember James and I having a fight. I can't think of a time I've even disagreed with him. If we did disagree, it had to have been minor as I don't even remember what you are referring to. I respect his judgement enough to usually defer to it if we were on the different sides of an issue. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Am I the "James" referred to? If so, Dennis, I think there have been one or two occasions when I disagreed with you, but I don't remember having a "fight" over any of them. Or maybe it wasn't me. There is an editor whose username is just "James", but he has made only 54 edits, not one of which has been on a page you have ever edited, so I don't think it's him. Anyway, whether I am the person referred to or not, here are a few of my thoughts. I think you would make a very good administrator, and I am delighted that you are considering an AfD. I have seen examples of your work quite a number of times, and my impression is that you are reliable, level-headed, and constructive. You frequently consult others, rather than jumping in unilaterally, which is a good thing. You are patient and civil to other editors, even when you clearly don't like what they are doing. I have not always agreed with everything you have done, but that is no reason for opposing you: any two people will disagree sometimes. You have extensive experience of several admin-related areas of work. Your content creation is a fairly small part of your work, and some people see that as a reason for opposing at RfA, but you have created more articles than many admins (for example, nearly three times as many as I have) so that should not be a problem. I have also looked at a sample of your articles, and they all looked good to me, and they were all genuine articles, not just stubs, so I really don't think there is likely to be any problem there. You have written on another page "The harshness there is one of the reasons I've avoided RfA", and it is, unfortunately, true that RfA can be an unpleasant experience, and the amount of unreasonable aggressive attacking of candidates has for some reason been steadily increasing over time. I found RfA very stressful, even though I had a three figure number of supports and a single figure number of opposes, so what it is like for good faith RfA candidates who get a lot of aggressive opposition I hate to think. However, as far as I know you have not made any serious enemies or got into heavy controversy, so the risk of having a rough time is probably not all that great. In fact, after checking through a sample of your edits, I can find only two things that might give me pause. Firstly, I managed to find one occasion when you made a report at AIV which was edit warring, and arguably disruptive, but not, as far as I could see, done in bad faith. If one such incident is the worst you have done then it may not be a big deal: we all make mistakes sometimes, but I suggest reading WP:Vandalism carefully. Secondly, I see here that you seem to be unclear of correct administraive procedure concerning animal sacrifice. I really do have serious doubts about anyone so grossly ignorant of administrative ritual running for RfA . JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I'd never seen that, but now that I have I will use it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to totally butt in, but I've seen you around the admin noticeboards recently and you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. I say go for it! (I would even nominate you if you wanted a completely unbiased opinion.) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a brief look through your edit history, it's pretty good. Mature attitude, article creation, high edit count with low proportion of automated edits, clean block log, good use of edit summaries... I can't see any valid reason to not support you. I would, however, opt into the monthly edit count breakdowns as per [13] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I've seen you around at ANI and you certainly have a cool head, but I do worry over potential disruption to your RfA since you were sort of involved in that MMA nonsense of a meatpuppet farm. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've never actually edited any of the MMA articles (not interested in MMA, never seen an event) and my involvement was to try to help bring some order to the process after multiple AFDs made it clear that a merge was in order. I would like to think my actions there helped calm things down, and a look at the talk pages of Talk:2012 in UFC events and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability would show I stayed out of most of the actual !voting on names, etc., and instead tried to help others understand the policy reasons for the change. One example would be helping User:Glock17gen4. (User:Elen of the Roads was involved in that as well). Now, most of the participants who originally opposed are on board with the changes (or banned for sockpuppeting). I had nom'ed one of the articles at AFD[14], which ended in merge to an undetermined article, and I made a conscience decision to stay involved (but not too involved) to help two other editors User:TreyGeek and User:Mtking start an omnibus article to merge the content into, simply supporting their efforts. There were times I disagreed with them as well, such as using AFD to force a merge, and I said as much. I also reverted myself once to keep from being dragged into an edit war and causing more problems. I would like to think my participation there was beneficial to the process, as someone who focused on the guideline side of the issue rather than the content. It would require a lot of deep reading to get the full picture, but anyone that cares to, I would welcome their input as to my handling of the issue. This was the first time I chose to intentionally put myself in the line of fire to help calm down an extremely heated dispute, so surely I made mistakes, but nothing I would be ashamed of. At the time I decided to get involved, the I had already thought about adminship, and figured that this would be a good test of my mettle and would serve a higher purpose. If I wasn't willing to help out and couldn't keep a cool head in what really was an explosive situation, then I shouldn't consider seeking admin. In the end, it was an ugly affair that needed some objective eyes on it, and fortunately a few others got involved just enough to help out by also being calm voices of reason, including User:Anna Frodesiak and User:DGG. Would I do some things differently now? Of course. I learned a lot during that process, it was my first time to participate in such an extreme dispute resolution but I don't regret my efforts. And sincerely, thanks for bringing that up, as I'm sure you are correct that some will bring up that issue in an RfA. All I can hope is that anyone who wants to judge me on my actions will first take the time to research it fully. (added later) And let me be clear, I have NO intention of getting involved in heated debates regularly. It is too taxing. But all admins should be expected to do ugly work every now and then. I've probably done more of this in the last few months that I would in a year, solely to make sure that I am up to the task. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. I think you've misunderstood me somewhat; anyone who opposes you based on your brilliant handling of that issue will be silly, or, more to my original point, a sock of one of those previously involved at the MMA mess. There have been cases in the past where disgruntled users have created socks or invited meatpuppets to ruin an RfA, and my only concern is that it may happen to you. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the compliment on my handling of the affair. I'm not as worried about socks/meat at an RfA as I would be in AFD or ANI, simply because I think there is a more serious approach to the process and they have a history of looking at the merits rather than the vote count. If a dozen socks show up to !vote, there really isn't anything I can do except hope they realize who is and isn't a sock. RfA isn't a good place for a candidate to have to constantly defend himself, so I would have to depend on others familiar with my efforts here to do that for me. That is one reason I started this talk where socks aren't as likely to participate, to see if the 'real' editors here would support my candidacy enough to actually speak out. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (informed as a talkpagestalker stalking at least one informed user) You want to work in the CSD area? Please get more experience! You CSD logs shows only 16 entries, while here are 35 false positives. (some might be transformed to a redirect, but likely not all) and thus many will oppose you because of a really bad ratio. mabdul 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    I just recently added the logging to CSD entries, which is why it is so sparce. I'm not sure how to pull a complete list of CSDs over the last year or the last 5.5 years I've been here to see an actual ratio, but I would like to see that. One of the reasons for logging was to make myself more aware, and to study the policy better. The list you show was already available on my user page, I added that myself. I would say a look at the actual "misses" might be more informative than just the numbers. Many of those are redirects or disambig pages now, and at least two of those are now articles in other editor's user space[16] and [17]. One is an unsourced BLP Elliott V. Bell, several others are ripe for AFD but I haven't labored it just to make a point. And yes, some were flatly mistaken. My shortcomings were pointed out to me previously [18], and I've taken a few months to sincerely work on them. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    If you do want to get a better idea of my ratio and don't mind reading through the chaff, [19] is a better way. I haven't done the math myself. Out of the 91 entries on the first page, 2 are redirects, 4 were bad calls, 3 were BLPs that had no sources but now have only 1 RS, the rest are redlinks. That is from Feb. forward, and I'm doing considerably better now. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Your log of deleted contributions for the last two months includes 88 edits which included "Requesting speedy deletion" in their edit summaries. Your log of undeleted contributions for the same period includes 10. Three of those ten are now redirects, so the articles which you tagged for speedy deletion have effectively been deleted. That makes 91 deletions that went ahead, and 7 that didn't. Even if we take every one that was not deleted as a mistake on your part, that is a ratio of good to bad nominations of 13:1, which is not bad. Moreover, it is unreasonable to take every one that was not deleted as a mistake on your part: some of them were perfectly reasonable suggestions that somebody else just happened to disagree with. (In fact, in my opinion, at least a couple of them unambiguously should have been deleted, and it was the person removing the speedy deletion tag who was wrong.) In fact, there are only two nominations among the 98 that I think were certainly mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm really just going to echo a lot of what others have said. I've seen you taking part in discussions in several areas, and you've always provided level-headed, calm, and well thought out input. In fact, on a few occasions I've thought of suggesting you run for admin, but haven't actually suggested it - don't want to be responsible for providing the poisoned chalice, and all that ;-) But seeing as you are thinking of it anyway, yes, I would certainly support you and I think you should make it. The only areas I think might cause some opposition is in CSD, but you've been clearly working on getting that right for some months now, and some might oppose due to relatively low content creation. But you've created more articles that I have, and I don't think there should be much opposition. In short, I'd say you're just the kind of candidate we want now, and I'd be very surprised if you didn't do well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Well, the good people above have made this pretty clear. A full review shows no problems to me; I'd be delighted to offer a nomination and will get writing if you're happy to accept and if the praise above has been sufficent to persuade you to run! Pedro :  Chat  09:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't expect this discussion would move this quickly or smoothly to be honest. Thanks to everyone that has offered an opinion here, I am genuinely humbled by the positive responses. User:Elen of the Roads has also expressed an interest in nominating me as well, and has seen a fair amount of my participation recently, if it would be appropriate to have two perform the task, if not, then yes I would like you to write it up please. I think I'm ready to serve, and I'm willing to run the gauntlet to find out if the consensus agrees. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown is blue. Pedro :  Chat  14:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed your request for feedback on my watchlist as I have the user page of several of the people you asked watchlisted. My immediate thought was that I'd be leaning oppose based on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#Persistant copyright violations at 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season. It's not your view that that is my concern but rather, that it appeared to me, that you did not take on board other user's comments as is suggested by your last post to that thread. I had made the point that, based on WMF counsel advice, that I thought it was possible that the list was copyrighted as it might not be simple facts and yet your last comment was wrote in a way that suggested it was agreed upon that they were facts, and so not copyrightable, rather than it just being your opinion. Throughout the conversation you did not once comment on my opinion and just seemed to ignore it, continuously stating that it wasn't copyrightable in the US and that was beyond doubt. I don't want to restart the debate about whether it is copyrighted but rather raise the issue with how you dealt with it. Given the comments above it would appear that your record overall is good so I won't oppose but I probably won't support either unless I have time to look at you wider contributions. Dpmuk (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I did get your point (after a few minutes), which is why I didn't dispute it. In hindsight, I could have replied to reinforce your statements, but I thought your correction spoke loud enough on the issue. I've already talked to User:Moonriddengirl earlier today about my wanting to get more involved with copyright (I'm a little familiar because of my day job), but in a few months after I've had the time to study the policies better. In my own defense, I didn't jump to the conclusion immediately and did seek outside assistance early in the process, but in the end you are still correct that my statements were too absolute and could have come across as an endorsement of the editor's actions. Whatever the consequences now, I had already been spending some time reading copyright policy here, and didn't intend to get more involved in actual disputes until I was more confident about them. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, as I say I won't oppose because of it because it seems likely based on all of the above that it was a was a bit off a one off and because you accept that you could have dealt with it better - everyone make mistakes and I think the ability to say as much is important in admins. If I get the chance I'll look at your other contributions and if, as seems likely, that conversation was a one off example of not communicating very well I'll happily support - I can hardly oppose someone for not communicating very well on the odd occasion given the length of one discussion at my own RfA!
    • More copyright help would always be appreciated, whether as an admin or not. The backlog at WP:CP is quite large at the moment and nicely shows how much we depend on User:Moonriddengirl. She has a weekend where she doesn't deal with any and the backlog grows a lot! I'm pitching in where I can but I've been quite busy myself recently.
    • As an aside, and unrelated to your RfA, my personal view is that WMF counsel is probably being a bit too conservative when it comes to copyright in lists, although I can understand why they'd prefer to lean that way than the other. However as I have no legal training, and most of the copyright stuff I know I've learnt here, I don't feel happy making the call that those fixture lists aren't copyrightable. If there was no counsel advice I'd be agreeing with you that they weren't but if I take the advice into account (which I feel I must) I'm less sure. Dpmuk (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

child-selling Talk

In case you're not watchlisting the child-selling redirect that was formerly an article, which you recommended be merged into trafficking of children, the merger is the subject of a new discussion, with a view to unmerging or another alternative. Please feel free to participate. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CSD

Hi. I've been following your RfA progress, and I'd like to help if I can. I did quite a lot of CSD nominations before I became an admin (and I think I got most of them about right), and I've done a fair bit of CSD work since (I've deleted around 5,000 pages, and have declined quite a lot of CSD requests - and I've made some mistakes too, but mistakes can be rectified). So if you'd like a CSD mentor for a few months I'd be happy to volunteer. You could run CSD decisions by me before doing them, I could present some to you to see what you think, etc - and perhaps we could do some joint CSD sessions when we're online together? Let me know what you think, and if it sounds good, please feel free to mention it at the RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds a generous and excellent offer. I'm nervous that this does not appear as an RFA "crowd pleaser"; I hope the community will look at it for exactly what it is - an experienced admin helping a mature thoughtful editor "cross the t's and dot the i's" Pedro :  Chat  15:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea after a few months wait, and that is in line with what I had just posted in question 8. I had looked at previous RfAs when preparing, and quit after reading a few because it was making me not want to run the gauntlet myself. My RfA, however, seems to be much more reasoned in tone, and I don't have a problem addressing their concerns. All I can do is be who I am and either they trust me with the tools or they don't. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, the tone of the opposes is encouraging - they read to me like "I'd like to support, but..." type opposes. Anyway, I'll leave it with you to decide how to progress it - and how to present it at the RfA should you so choose. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A7

Quick way to remember it: A7 subjects are (or have been) alive or made up of living beings, or are only found and used on the web. Obviously some exceptions - animals have to be named, like Gertie the Crocheting Bullfrog, and not be species or genera (or even anonymous herds). Otherwise, people, and groups of people. Companies, underwater knitting circles, Churches (that is, The Church of the Sixth Reincarnation, yes; the Grade II listed building St Ethelfroth's Anglican Church, Little Twittering, no), charities, bands (but not rubber bands) and so on. Web content has to be that. The Great Auk browser is not web content, but greataukbrowser.com (where you can download it for $49.95) is. Any CSD queries, just ask. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Ephraim Snodgrass (the lead character of Snoddy & Fred's Unauthorised Adventures) is not A7 - he's fiction. Arthur Blogg who wrote it is, as is Wayne Shurtarz who plays him. The series would need prodding like Snodgrass. Then AfD when someone removes the prod. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I've already begun being considerably more cautious when it comes to speedy delete [20]. I would agree with the consensus that I need to study up and perhaps memorize a bit of policy before jumping in with the mop. Another admin has also been gracious enough to also offer an ear when I have a question, and I appreciate all offers. CSD is likely my greatest weakness, with 91% ratio over the last 5 years. Not the worst for an editor, but I understand that an admin will need to be much closer to 100%, and if I pass RfA, I'm confident I will take the time to insure I will. This is one reason I've been nom'ing less for CSD/PROD/AFD and instead focusing on ANI and other disputes, where my contributions are more likely to be on the mark. I still need to improve at CSD, but that be done without the tools, even while I find uses for the tools elsewhere. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, now you have opposes for being too much of a deletionist and too much of an inclusionist... I think that means you're doing it right. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
      • If anything, I'm flattered, as one comment included "He is a solid candidate." and other positive remarks, even though they oppose. And as to the AFD above it, I had nom'ed, and have no regrets as to any comment I made afterwards, and I had already admitted in that AFD that it wasn't my best work writing a nom. These two each only expressed concern over one edit out of over 18,000 edits I've made, and if that is enough that they think I shouldn't be an admin, then that's ok, they have every right to express their concerns. If anything, I'm just happy that the tone has been very civil and a bit overwhelmed by the amount of support I've received. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Yeah, but you deserve a lot of the credit for the civil tone in the discussion, people really react to the way the nominee conducts him/herself. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I haven't researched a lot of RfAs, which may or may not have been wise, but I'm trying to just answer the questions and in the one case above, address the concern about the one AFD. Whether that is wise or not, I have no idea, but I would hate to be one "oppose" away because someone disagreed in a single AFD. He never addressed his concern on my talk page or at the AFD, just at the RfA. Like I said there, I could have avoided doing anything but minor edits this week, but honestly, that would have been a little bit cowardly and that isn't the kind of person I want to be. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Request Dennis, do me a favor and read over WP:WIHSD. I see others have left comments but I want to leave another that I hope you'll give a good sincere read over. Wikipedia is entirely built on consensus. The problem with CSD is that a sysop can delete an article without any consensus. However, in truth the sysop does have consensus to delete because the consensus can be found at WP:CSD. What that means though, is that unless you are operating exactly how they are written, then you are not deleting with consensus. It's important to follow CSD strictly because it is one of the areas of Wikipedia with the least oversight. Except for Arbcom, Oversight, and Checkuser; CSD has a certain level of secretiveness that regular editors arn't able to review for accuracy and compliance. That's why it's more important than any other area of Wikipedia to get right. That's why it can tank an RFA. Also, especially with A7, the point of CSD criteria is not to delete articles that have no chance of passing an AFD. CSD has the lowest of low thresholds to avoid deletion. Anyway, give the essay a read over and let me know.--v/r - TP 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I had already gotten to the part where it went through each category individually when I left work to come home, which is an hour drive. About to eat and expected to finish it. It is interesting, and sometimes uncomfortably familiar. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, a salad, some cold pastrami and a small wedge of some really nice smoked Gouda. I feel better. I read over the rest of the article. It will take a few complete readings to get the full grasp which I will do another day, but I wanted to make one observation that is probably already obvious to you. This is NOT a justification of my previous mistakes tagging articles, it is just the truth from someone who didn't think about being an admin until a few months ago but still cared about Wikipedia. The reason so many editors will tag an article with a CSD tag, and do so sloppily, is that it works. Even when the criteria is wrong, the admin will just correct the criteria in the summary and delete. When it is a non-notable person but still doesn't meet A7, they will still delete it most of the time (I'm considering 2008 to now). It has been an effective means to avoid a contentious AFD and it comes with no consequences unless really abused. There is no easy method of determining your "ratio" as an editor, so no incentive for being right. Yes, this is ugly, but the truth, and the average editor learns this quickly. And when any editor that is trying to "weed out the junk" knows this, they are likely to take these shortcuts for as long as they work. Honestly, I never thought about it very deeply until this RfA, but I'm starting to get a grasp of how detrimental it can be.
If every editor's page had a "CSD stop light" that was green when their ratio was 95% or higher, yellow for 90-95%, red for 80-90% and black with a warning sign when it was below 80%, maybe that would be a personal incentive. I don't know, at least some way to know your ratio, accounting for stuff like redirects (as deletes, to be generous). Very likely, nothing like that will never happen for technical reasons, even if we wanted it. That or have admins at CSD act like ogres to "offenders" for each mistake, which isn't very good either. But the fact is, sending the wrong article to speedy IS easier, effective, and with virtually no consequences. Until that is changed at some level, I'm not sure what can be done to reduce the problems at the Wiki level. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The change starts with you. I never delete articles that do not meet the explicit criteria. I decline maybe 40% of the A7s I come across. I probably decline 80% of the A1 and A3s. It's up to you to be the first to make the change and encourage others to do the same. Sending the wrong article to CSD because it's easier won't isn't going to be fixed if you do it because other people do it too. Follow the right process and it will improve.--v/r - TP 02:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • One very common mistake is to think that the CSD criteria are clear cut and objective, and that a "good" admin always sticks strictly to those criteria, while a "bad" one doesn't. None of the criteria is clear cut and objective. What constitutes "unambiguous advertising or promotion"? A matter of judgement, and one admin will disagree with another, without either of them being unreasonable. What constitutes "sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"? What constitutes a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of a page deleted via a deletion discussion? And so on... all of them are matters of judgement, to a greater or lesser extent. And as for A7, it is hopelessly vague. Nowhere is there any guidance as to what constitutes a claim of "importance or significance", and I find that interpretations of this vague expression vary enormously. (That is why I most often don't even look at A7 CSD nominations when I am checking the list of candidates for speedy deletion. I just don't like getting into the quarrels that they entail. I also find that A7 nominations often stay in the list longer than many others, suggesting that I am not the only admin who tends to avoid them.) Amazingly many editors, and, I am afraid, many admins, cannot see that CSD is a matter of admin judgement, and seem to think the criteria are objective. Having said that, there are certain aspects of some of the CSDs which are objective. For example, an article about a product made by a company does not qualify for A7, no matter what, although an article about the company might. You have occasionally made mistakes of that "objective" kind about CSDs, and you need to clarify your understanding, but in my opinion the extent of the problem has been grossly exaggerated, both here and in your RfA. As I have said both on this page and in your RfA, a very small number of your CSD nominations have clearly been wrong, a larger but still small number have been matters of others making a different judgement from you, and the vast majority have been absolutely fine. By all means accept Boing!'s offer of help: from what I know of him, I am sure he will do a first rate job of advising you, and from what I know of you, you will do a first rate job of learning from him. However, please bear in mind that this is a small detail, and not the big issue that it has been made out to be. Other admin candidates have had a more questionable CSD record than you, and nobody has even mentioned it: in your case one editor has made (in my opinion) a bigger issue of this small problem than is justified, and others have tagged along. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate you doing the math James, and I would love to see a tool that make it easier to see what a user's ratio was over a given period and over total history. I agree that my problem with CSD has been somewhat overstated by a few editors, but I accept that some believe that any ratio below 100% is unacceptable and they have a right to oppose if that is how they feel, thus I haven't rebutted their arguments. Their concerns have all been expressed in good faith, and that is all I can ask. My real problem with CSD has been one of perspective, focusing on removing "unwanted" material over the years, rather than considering the broader impact. That is what fed the occasional sloppiness. I've often found that one disadvantage of being open and honest about your shortcomings is that a rare few will jump on that and may blow it out of proportion. Just as when I stated that I had considered laying a little low this week but felt it would be dishonest and didn't, then one editor saw that honesty as a weakness and further justification to oppose. I would disagree with that assessment (and I'm sure that crosses the mind of many RfA candidates, I was just honest enough to admit it), but I'm not going to debate them over it. The fact that I stayed involved in AFD has already came back "to bite me" as one oppose because I !voted to keep an article at AFD, but he was very civil and even complimentary so I can't complain. I have no intention of avoiding working in any area this week, consequences be damned. Regardless, I'm just happy (and a little surprised) that the discussion has been remarkably civil and constructive. Even the observations that I disagree with have all been expressed in good faith. Realistically, that is the best you can hope for, regardless of the outcome. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd like to see a debate trying to settle what was the definition of significance, especially if Fastily and Colonel Warden were involved... I agree with James B that there can be a wide range of possible interpretations of some things. I've deleted over 14000 pages in just over 12 months - some by request, of course - and very few authors have appealed so far. If you delete by mistake, you can restore. I have restored a few times because I had second thoughts, or userfied by request. A couple went to DRV - one was declined, the other AfDed and then deleted again. Whatever you do, you can undo. When I started out with my mop, I was exceedingly cautious at first. I was leaving alone tagged things that I would have tagged on sight. That's another point - no-one is forcing you to delete a particular article. If you're not sure, don't. We all do it. Someone else will do something - usually because they know the subject better. I was a spotter of hoaxes amongst the spam etc - but I wouldn't have known one about an American sportsman until it was pointed out and I Googled. (I always think American sport in general sounds like a hoax to begin with...) BTW Just answer Keepscases. He won't help you. (Usually doesn't, anyway.) His questions aren't silly - they just can't be answered by parroting the book... Peridon (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I took your advice and answered the question with some hesitation. I knew the question was reasonable, but it was so vague that I found it difficult to answer without qualifying the answer somewhat. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that's partly the point of Keepscases' questions - to offer something away from policy and out of the usual "admin" mindset, and see how people respond to the unexpected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
PS: On the objectivity of the CSD criteria... Regardless of whether individuals here think the guidelines are or are not objective (and I pretty much concur with JBW on that), what is blatantly clear to me is that in practice there is a wide spread of actual interpretation amongst admins - especially on what counts as a credible claim of importance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • When I answered Q4, I knew that was going to be tricky and different editors would have different opinions. It was actually a good question and example for this. There are hundreds of TV channels now and being on one show on one channel isn't automatically a valid claim. It was in this case, but I felt it was borderline, which is why I should have prod'ed it instead. I notice Scottywong basically said that my ratio is even better than the 91% previously claimed [21]. I still need work, but I thought that was good of him to point out, even though he opposes my adminship. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I think that one was borderline. And it was a good answer - if in doubt, PROD/AfD rather than CSD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I still remember Keepscase's question at my RFA. I think you did good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You had a little fun with your answer, and I liked your answer. In this case, he seemed fairly serious and I had concerns that there might have been a heated discussion somewhere on the topic. Answering it felt like I was wearing clown shoes in a mine field. I've tried to be polite but honest in my answers, like Q4 where I thought it was more of a borderline case than others might have thought, even if my tagging was improper. I actually feel fairly lucky that the discussion is very reasonable. Obviously the whole shebang is somewhat stressful, but it seems much more civil than the few RfAs I've looked at before. I'm still floored that so many people are willing to openly support and speak on my behalf, both on the talk page here and at RfA. Regardless of the outcome, that alone was makes the stress worth it. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re;. Luka Basanets

Hi, Dan. I don't think the tag belongs. The tag seems to be for use when there are problems with the source relied on: the tag says that "Discussion about the problems with the sole source used may be found on the talk page." There are other mentions of the subject in material I've found, but they are passing references without any depth, while the work cited as a reference is an actual biography from a published book that contains the same facts. So, additional sources could be found, but they would be unhelpful. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the tag is there mainly to tell the person reading the article that the information is based on a single source, so may not present the total picture or may be incomplete. I've always thought that any article with a single source, regardless of quality, qualified for the tag, but I would invite a 3rd opinion on it. I will go ask someone else, just to be sure. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've asked Drmies to give an opinion. He is impartial and quite experienced, so I trust his opinion. I've never had anyone ask me about this before, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I saw Dennis's note on Drmies's page - hope y'all don't mind my jumping in with my two cents' worth. I don't have any problem with the single source tag per se; however, given that some of the information is not cited at all, I think the Refimprove tag would be better. (I'd replace one tag with the other, not add to the list.) That's just my take, and Drmies may have a different view. LadyofShalott 16:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I would never disagree with the Lady. Dennis is correct about the tag, but if the Lady's further reading reveals the refimprove issue, that's a better (because more general) tag to signal possible improvement. Zlovoylsheb, thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia needs multilingual editors to improve its coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Per the discussion here, I removed the One Source tag, then added the Ref Improve tag. And yes, Zloyvolsheb, thanks for the contributions and bringing this to my attention. I got to learn something today, which is a good thing. Dennis Brown ® © 19:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know and sharing your opinions. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Wikipedia:Edit filter can be used to prevent certain words from being snuck into articles, among other things. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I thought that might be what you were referring to. Beyond my current pay grade to decide if that is wise or not, but isn't that a little ham-fisted (and resource intensive) when long term protection can be done? If this was 100 articles, I would lean toward the filter, but if it is just two, it just seems a little overkill. Again, not an expert opinion, just an editor observation. Dennis Brown ® © 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Long term protection as in months? Maybe, but I just know the second the lock comes off the page, Navin will be pimping himself on the article again. Edit filtering it would get rid of it permanently. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was thinking 90 days, but this is out of my league here as I have no experience with edit filtering so I will leave to an admin to decide at ANI. I didn't want to mention it there as not to steer any opinion on it. Dennis Brown ® © 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, all of you

I want to thank everyone that took the time to participate in my RfA. I've said it before but it is worth repeating: I'm humbled by the tremendous amount of support I received during this entire process. It was unexpected, as was the amount of overall interest. More importantly, the vast majority of those who !voted to oppose, did so in good faith, offering constructive criticism and even some compliments. There was a little drama but it isn't in my nature to dwell on these things or hold grudges anyway. What matters is what we all do from here forward.

I want to thank Pedro and Elen for trusting me enough to nominate me, and too many others to list here, including everyone who took the time to fully research and publicly give me the benefit of the doubt. I did gain a lot of clarity during the process, and it changed my perspective on several things. Saying it was stressful is an understatement, more so that I expected. Fortunately, I had good advice along the way, and learned a great deal about myself and others. Several editors whom I respect have offered to help me address my shortcomings at CSD and I will take them up on their offers. Universally, it was made clear that I should tread lightly with deletions. I agree with and trust their assessment and pledge to do exactly that. In the short run, I have a lot to read up on and learn, but I want to keep up with regular editing as well, and allow myself enough time to learn what I'm doing, before I do it.

Now if you will pardon me, I think I'm going to grab a beer and spend the evening with the Mrs. and my two dogs. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. I suggest bearing in mind the issues raised about CSD tagging during your RfA and taking it easy in this area for a while. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news; despite the unruly misery of two days ago the community gave the right result. Any questions, please ask however as mentioned I'm going to be taking a break for a while. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Congrats from me too - the last couple of days perhaps got a bit fraught, but it looks to me like it actually did still remain civil and constructive. Anyway, my Talk page is always open, so pop on over any time if there's anything I can help with - and let me know when you feel up to starting on CSD stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, you held up admirably--that couldn't have been an easy week! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. The CSD pile-on was out of proportion and you dealt with it well. Watch when tagging new pages for speedy deletion now... Twinkle's functions have changed slightly with your admin rights and you'll delete them automatically unless you uncheck a box. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    That's a good point, yes - there's a Twinkle preference somewhere to set it so that CSD still only tags articles by default. I never use Twinkle to delete things - I only use it for tagging, and I use the standard "Delete" for deleting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    Good advice, that. :) I accidentally deleted a time or two when I intended to tag. I've got the hang of it now, but that might have spared me some embarrassment in my day! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    Third on that one. Though I'm crap at CSD - I never delete anything, just spend an hour trying to rewrite everything on the list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Mop carefully! Looks like you need an updated box for your userpage... BusterD (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Dennis wondered whether the reward really was worth the effort
No apology required. I have been, and always shall be your friend. ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ © 10:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Like the mop, essential equipment
  • Holy carp. I'm looking at it, but I've never closed an RfC and this one has a lot of legal considerations. I'm comfortable enough understanding it from a technical point, but couldn't promise I can close it until I read all of it and comb through the policy to better understand the status quo. This would be a trial by fire. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 11:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like some good ideas with no consensus, but I only got about half way through before my brain started hurting, so I went and did something that looked much easier, defusing a situation of someone calling another a racist at ANI. (God, I wish I was joking but I'm not, that is easier than the RfC). Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Congratulations for maintaining a cool head during a grueling RFA. Drop me a line or email anytime if you want a second opinion on any admin issues (jog me if there is email because I do not check it that frequently). RFA can be a case of someone finding one's worst edit or action and presenting it as the basis for an oppose. No one is perfect, and .001 percent of the edits can be blown up and draw the focus of too much drama and anguish. Take that shiny new mop and get going. Edison (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Putting a trout on your user page.

MMA Notability

I split your Idea and your commentary into separate sections as I really think the idea is the gold pressed way to move forward with the article space. If you want to re-join the idea and commendary, just move the section header below your signature. Hasteur (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Done it all.

What am I meant to do. Wikipedia is quite hard at finding references, Maybe someone can change the rules a bit better then we wouldnt have these big arguements that last 2 months. Some of my edits were quite bad, I wouldnt mind if people give me a hand on the Threads or even edit it to make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


You should come to King Genovese and discuss this. If you will, I can point you in the right direction to make it easier, and explain some things, but not here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) King, I posed a question at User talk:Don Cuneo that was never answered. Are you the same person? Your editing habit made me wonder if you were. Calabe1992 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. You got a cool head. FYI FleetCommand is still autoblocked. That needs to be lifted also before he/she can return to editing. I made the same mistake. --RA (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I won't work for me for some dang reason, please feel free to do it, since it is obvious that it is agreed to. I've never blocked or unblocked before, need to read the manual I guess ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've done it. Again, no comment on the block/unblock. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm doing something wrong obviously, it kept saying that the autoblock didn't exist for that username.... :/ Again, its a two day old mop, I have more reading to do. Thanks! Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The unblock link from the autoblockfinder on toolserver doesn't work, you need to copy the id it finds, and then plug it into Special:Unblock manually. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. I spend more time to prevent people from getting blocked, so I need to definitely read up. I hesitated even getting involved in this one, but glad I did. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your are unblock

Hello, Dennis Brown.

Congratulations on your becoming an admin. I was notified of your RfA but unfortunately I was so busy I could not participate.

Yes, you are right. It think I overstayed my welcome in Wikipedia.

Still, there is something I wish you to know. I have received four blocks, two of which are reviewed and reverted. But their brand of shame still sears and burns like the sun. People nowadays do not hesitate to use the seven dirty words against me. (I am sorry, but at the moment, I have no stronger example other than Talk:Microsoft Security Essentials § Edits by James (User:M.O.X) which is a poor.) I have never felt that anyone sticks to WP:BITE. From the moment that I started editing Wikipedia (2009), the policy that was employed against me was Wikipedia:**** the newcomer! I tried my best to be polite, only to learn that in such cases, administrators accuse polite users of "being condescending/patronizing/faux-polite". And now, I am expected to behave myself? Please, I beg of you, define "behave" for me!

Moreover, two of the admins that have imposed blocks on me at one point or another broke the BRD cycle and turned into BRR and then abused me. Even in my only GA article, an admin performed an edit which was not approved by GAN. When reverted and notified him, he just reverted AGAIN! If it is wrong for me, why is not wrong for them? How can I correct my misdemeanor when I do not know what I did wrong? How can I act in good faith when I am convinced that administrators are not acting in good faith?

I have never felt that my blocks were just; quite to the contrary even my first block that is the most rightfully enforced one (I admit I deserved it) caused me to shout "unfair"! When I came to Wikipedia I had faith in it and I was polite. Now, I have lost my faith and have social problems. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Fleet Command (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The reason I got involved was because the block looked unusual. The public spanking was part of the plea bargain at ANI. I meant what I said, but I'm not blind to other issues. Rather than rehash all the mistakes that everyone made, I just focused on the results. Blocks should only be used to prevent disruption, not to be punitive, and I felt that unblocking you was the proper thing to do, as any perceived threat of disruption was gone. I don't think you have overstayed any welcome, but you may be under a lot of scrutiny. I hope you stay, and that you can feel comfortable doing so. If you find yourself in a situation where objective administrative oversight would be helpful, or just have concerns about anything, feel free to leave me a note. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ditto. I'm someone whose blood can rise too. Simply learn to keep a cool head and accept that, no matter how right you may think you are, together we make better articles. I hope that you can stay as well - but I hope too that you can take on board what I wrote about your interaction with *.68. If you can, you and the encyclopedia will be better for it. Regards, --RA (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, my! I did unwatch my talk page but I forgot to disable those infernal email notifications. And what I find? Two polite admins! Two actually polite admins. Well, it would have been a treasured find when I was in Wikipedia. But now that I am retired, well, it is like shedding tears for the dead. (Reminds me of Mafia in films; they are famous for their funerals, especially services for those that they themselves killed.) No! I am not going to stay in a place where admins are allowed to edit war, sabotage Good Article Nominations, issue blocks whenever they want and do exactly what others are not allowed to do on pain of being blocked. I am already feeling ... free!
Although, I will stay if you take this case of admin abuse to Arbitration Committee. No, don't answer that; I know you will never do! Ha ha! Fleet Command (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have done what I thought was right, which is what I try to always do. I'm assuming good faith here for all parties. I left a message on Todd's page noting that I might have considered other options or refrained because of the time gap, and FC, I meant what I said on your talk page as well, that a little restraint might serve you well. I didn't take sides and I'm not the judge, I just tried to find the most equitable solution that both parties can agree on for the given circumstances. I don't know either of you well enough to make a character judgement, and since the block is lifted, it wouldn't serve any purpose for me to do so. Like I told him at ANI, a little fresh air between you two is likely a good thing. I hope you do come back and continue editing, even if you want a little self imposed break. And if our paths cross again, I hope you can trust that I will be fair to everyone concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Dinarvand n

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I liked your comment in this RFA so look here. PumpkinSky talk 16:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Another case closed

Hello to you Dennis. Thanks to Checkuser, the identity of Helplesscross was discovered; as we all suspected, he wasn't as new as his account suggested. See here[22], regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

hey ..

Hi Dennis,

As the black-sheep of the Pedro cabal I wanted to stop by and congratulate you on your RfA. Certainly not an easy one. I'm always so glad to support and welcome one of Pedro's noms to adminship. It is indeed a lofty achievement (Floq, 28bytes, Kim, Peter, etc.). I had to log in to address something (ADMINACT and all), and wanted to stop by to offer my thoughts. I have to say that I am truly impressed with all your efforts, but then again, it doesn't surprise me considering the company that's kept. One thing I'll mention: The day will come where you screw up big time. It happens to everyone. When it does happen to you - step away from the keyboard for a bit, take a deep breath, and come back with the same exact posture you've always shown. While not everyone will always agree with you, your integrity, honesty, and dedication will support you well. Congratulations, and all my best. Ched. — Ched :  ?  19:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks Ched. I've developed a taste for crow over the years, hopefully I won't have to be eating too often. I'm taking it rather slow, doing lots of reading, trying to focus on what I'm most comfortable with first, and avoiding the weaknesses pointed out by everyone at the RfA until I'm ready to address them. I truly appreciate the amount of support that everyone has given me. I'm used to blending in with the woodwork here, so it is a bit overwhelming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"original packaging"

Dennis, your approach at ANI is to be soundly applauded and is a refreshing change. You talk an awful lot of sense! Sincerely. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I hope you can mange to keep the bubble wrap on your button for a good long while. I also applaud your use of direct messages in lieu of warning templates. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 00:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Respectively posting here, because I feel that it's relevant to your remark:

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Calabe1992 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 00:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not expecting to Oppose, and I really like you Calabe, but the initial shock of seeing that left me no choice but to withdraw, if only for now. I've seen so many BLP battles over the years including the damage it causes to the project, I honestly have a knee jerk reaction to that kind of stuff, humor or otherwise. Enough so that I avoid BLP violations on the whole as it is very difficult for me to maintain the level of calm and objectivity that others expect here. I will review the situation after my blood pressure returns to normal and try to be as objective as I can in reviewing the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • In the interest of giving you a fair chance to better help us understand this situation, I have commented at the ANI asking everyone to reserve judgement until you have. I suggest you do not rush, but instead choose your words well. I'm not an influential admin here, and my voice is no louder than anyone elses, but I hope it was convincing enough to persuade others to at least be open minded until you have had a chance to state your case. If anything, the fact that I had previously withdrawn support should tell them I'm not trying to be your fan, and trying to instead do what is fair in this situation. We will see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I've also essentially repeated it at the top, since my name was invoked. Sorry to butt in in the middle of your question and answer, but I'm hoping you will forgive the intrusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Nothing wrong done for me to forgive you for. I've issued some further comments below that. Calabe1992 03:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
          • After sleeping on it and looking at everything, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and reinstate support. The situation does add to the claims that an admin needs some experience in editing articles in order to fight vandalism, and that you have a great weakness in this area. I feel like I'm going out a limb a bit here, but willing to give the benefit of the doubt and hope you will take the time to learn more about editing. Not sure my one vote will make any difference anyway, but at least the overnight wasn't flooded with people using the Cain incident as a reason to oppose, so perhaps you are being given a fair chance. There are still other valid concerns expressed by those who oppose, after all. You have managed to make my RfA look a bit more tame in comparison. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Review requested.

I'm not much of an image person being more into text copyright but I have had some exposure to images and I'd agree that the textual logo is not copyright. The other logo that's there twice is probably copyrightable but also almost certainly De minimis. I think it could be argued that the textual image is also De minimis but as it's not copyrightable anyway that's a moot point. More interesting in the point brought up at the commons deletion request that the arrangement of lights, the platform etc could be copyrighted and here I'm really feeling out of my depth. There is another possible complication here in that I believe a lot of events only allow photography for personal use as a condition of entry. Obviously this is not really a copyright issue, and not being a lawyer I'm not sure how they relate to each other, but if they've agreed to only take photos for personal use it's debatable whether we should be using it. All in all this is a little complicated and I certainly wouldn't hold it against any editor for not understanding it all. I doubt there's a single editor here that could be confident answering all the questions that have popped up with the image of the top of their head. Dpmuk (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh and feel free to quote any of that at the RfA if you want. I posted it here rather than there as I haven't had a chance to review the RfA for a while - a job for tomorrow hopefully. Dpmuk (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Monty845 has raised some other issues here [23] and submitted it for deletion. I'm not familiar enough with the admins at commons to venture a guess as to how they will view it. I don't think it passes the threshold, but he does have a point that in certain circumstances, the stage presentation as a whole might be considered copyrightable. I'm not sure enough to debate it at commons, and will let the system just work, but you might also want to follow it. At the least, a learning experience as far as thresholds go, because this one is in the grey area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC 2012 page

What do you think of the 10 PPVs per page suggestion, and having the events with their own page? I think that way the page will not be too short, nor too long and cluttered. It's works alot like the Bellator seasons page. Because trying to divide the UFC into years will just lead to disaster. MMA is the fastest growing sport in the world. So much happens and changes in 1 year that it's hard to keep up with just one page. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • We usually break articles down by logical unit, years, months, seasons, but we do break other things up by groups of numbers, top 100s for example. I would need to look at the [{WP:MOS]] and find the proper section that covers this before offering a final opinion. It is in interesting idea, and appreciate you bringing it up. It's 5:40am here, so I might wait until I'm fully caffeinated before looking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Apology accepted, Dennis. I felt that your criticisms should have been directed at your fellow admins, if anyone, and not to me, who am in the position of reporting smoke and flames at a house down the block: a four-alarm fire, or just a backyard barbecue? I should tell you this is not the first time I have brought a problem - which does not involve me personally in any way - to a group in Wikipedia who should know best how to handle it, and instead of thanks and appreciation gotten a sneer and a put-down for my conscientious effort, which I did not have to make. Which is largely why I have no interest in being part of the running of this outfit; I come to Wikipedia simply to pass the time pleasantly and make such good, worthwhile edits as I can. When it becomes unpleasant, I don't want to be here. So you guys handle the situation with kid gloves or grenades, or whatever you think most appropriate; I was just bringing it to your collective attention, trying to spare somebody a much bigger mess to clean up down the road - and now my role in the situation is done. Textorus (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm used to just jumping in and trying to resolve issues as an editor, not an admin. I'm new to the mop, and I sometimes forget that the same comments might be taken more seriously because of the admin bit. It shouldn't be, since everyone has the same voice, but as you point out, that isn't the way it always works here. So I need to be a little more careful with the humor. Sometimes contacting a friendly admin is more effective than going to ANI in simple cases like this. I have done that with User:JamesBWatson and others for a long time. You can do that here as well, if you choose. I try to use the least aggressive method to deal with problem that will get results. And as to my fellow admins, I wouldn't expect you to know, but I have been publicly critical more than a few times, even before becoming an admin. I don't think admins should be treated any differently than non-admins in this way. As to my gentle handling of petty offenders, my fear is that we take potentially good editors and turn them away, or we take someone "pranking", and turn them into a long time vandal because they get a rise out of it. Kind of like "don't feed the trolls". ANI puts a lot of eyes on a problem, and not all of those eyes have a gentle approach, so I'm quick to jump in where a gentle approach is likely to work for that reason. Anyway, if you run across a problem editor that you think I can assist with, feel free to drop me a line here. And thanks for understanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer, Dennis, which I accept; you will be my go-to admin in future. This is the first time in over five years of editing that any admin has reached out to me in this way, and I much appreciate that. My skills and abilities are better spent in other ways than in trying to keep track of the endless convolutions of WP structure and policy. I understand and appreciate also your desire not to turn away a potential new editor; but there's something to be said for retaining seasoned old editors, too. So I'll holler at you first in future instead of going straight to ANI. Textorus (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Forumshopping

Hi, I was trying to reply at ANi but got edit conflicted to death so just gave up in the end as the conclusion was to close the thread. One of the points I was trying to make (after Chris's comment) was that for me the WQA thing was about OhioStandard's interaction with myself, and SL93 just piled in over there to pour oil on the flames and magnify what was a minor misunderstanding, which Ohio happily contributed to by taking the completely unrelated comments from the AfD and highlighting them in yellow, very subtle. Sorry, but I don't appreciate users like SL93 who, after attacking me at the AfD, post at my talk page and involve themselves in issues which they have nothing to do with and start creating "deeurhaama" left, right and centre. I certainly was not forum shopping, for me, I was dealing with the unrelated insistent reversion of the RPA tag, and I believe I was being pretty reasonable as I did not expect an apology, just tried to AGF that "jerk" comment as a heat of the moment thing. Anyway, I've been called worse, and am now writing this supping a long, cool Portuguese beer, and will then proceed to do some cooking. Just for info. Cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Even if it isn't intentional, you have to be very careful when you are starting an ANI when you are at another forum, and some of the participants are the same. At the very least, you disclose this in your report, so your faith never has to be questioned. Note that WP:RPA says there is no policy on when to remove text or not. This was in the grey area, and I had not made up my mind and was instead hoping you two would agree to one or the other. I didn't care which, as long as you were both happy about it. You two would never agree on the problem, but you MIGHT have agreed to the solution, which is all we should worry about at ANI. Chris raised the issue about the Wikiquette case, and because there was no action that I had to take at ANI, I didn't have a choice but to drop it and let Wikiquette deal with the larger issues. His attack WAS improper, no doubt, but SL93 had apologized in that ANI thread, and had previously struck his comments, the only issue was strike vs. revert, which I covered above. Since nothing warranted immediate action (the purpose of ANI), ANI should defer to the previous forum. It isn't a statement on the merits of your claims, but when he more or less backed down and apologized, it made them moot when compared to the larger case that was ongoing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me, yes the apology came begrudgingly and a bit late, imo, but I think everybody should just drop the stick, I object to being ganged up on for one or two comments that were slightly uncivil, but hardly personal attacks. Well, thanks for your ponderings. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

some background on JTBX

I'm not sure why you weighed in at No Country for Old Men. You may be unaware that JTBX filed an unwarranted complaint against me that was heard by EdJohnston. In his opinion, he mentioned that the only matter that he considered acting on were JTBX's personal attacks on me. He asked the two of us to work through another editor (Gareth Griffith-Jones) on [The Godfather]. That decision was 25 April. JT violated that decision of EdJohnston's by editing that page without agreement from the rest of us.

Only after that decision did JTBX start editing on NCFOM. Then on JTBX's talk page, there is this:

As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So I don't think JT is as pure as the driven snow. Of course you have to decide for yourself. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I got involved because it didn't belong at ANI. WP:ANI is the not the proper venue for content disputes, WP:DRN is, which I pointed you to, yet no one has reported there. On the talk page of the article, you were already talking about the article, a good start and is required to go to DRN anyway. It is set up and formatted for content disputes, ANI is not. ANI is the venue for incidents (the I) that require immediate admin action. If someone is threatening, making several personal attacks, or doing something that requires quick action, then yes, ANI is the place to go, but that didn't apply here. If the problem is simple incivility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance is the place to go because it setup and clerked by people who are good at dealing with that. That said, when I can help solve a problem that should be somewhere else, I will, but sometimes ANI isn't the answer, such as your case. I was under no illusion that either of you are "pure as the driven snow" and did not render an opinion nor take sides, my language was obviously neutral. So if you want a solution to the problems on the article, again, go to WP:DRN. If you are as right as you say you are, then surely your view will prevail. I didn't send you there to be rude, I sent you there because that is the place you will get the fastest results, backed by a documented consensus. As an example, if it went to DRN and it was decided by consensus that "fact=true", then someone kept reverting and adding "fact=false", then I have a grounds to block or otherwise sanction that editor. But it starts in dispute resolution. If he gets ABUSIVE, then let me know, that is different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis I appreciate your help, but this isn't just a content dispute. I've had a lot of "content disputes" (see Talk:Predators (film)), this is more of a case of someone who thinks they own articles continually reverting. As Captian Screebo did on the ANI, check this user's talk page. You will find things find much worse than this nugget

As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!

That he keeps stringing along to all his postings now. It is clear this editor has repeatedly conflicted with users and admins since 2008 if you look at his history, I appreciate you linking the DRN, which I will try and begin soon. But I am also thinking of opening a Rfc on this user (see User talk:El duderino). I do not wish to dispute and spill over arguments on other editors', especially admins' pages. But since this wolf in sheep's clothing wises to soil my clean record I must respond. Thank you --JTBX (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at the history and did notice an extraordinary number of reverts, but wasn't ready to draw a conclusion. This would be one of the issues to bring up at DRN. I'm not taking sides because this is beyond my expertise, and beyond the scope of ANI at this stage. Even if you are correct, WP:OWN by itself isn't likely an ANI issue. ANI tends to deal with more obvious stuff. This is not so obvious and requires the more reflective viewpoints in dispute resolution. Rest assured, DRN admin have the same tools that ANI admins have to deal with other problems, but they have the experience to look at histories and these types of matter much better. ANI is a hammer, and not every problem is a nail. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your precious time in this issue. Although it was not me who began the ANI warning, I merely responded to the clone reports he is pasting to other admins. Does DRN deal with user conduct? --JTBX (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The content should be the central issue. Conduct is considered, but shouldn't be a major part, or necessarily any part of, the initial report. Both parties have to agree to go there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a little unfair to criticize me for keeping an eye on a couple articles so the vandals don't mar them. I'm very open to improvements and I work with anyone who comes along. JT, unfortunately, didn't appreciate me only accepting some of his changes and recommending we discuss the rest.
Furthermore, I would mention that, EdJohnston advised both me and JTBX to "ask the opinion of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones on any further changes they want to make" in his dispute resolution decision. Since that time, JTBX has made at least two edits on the page in question without consulting Gareth. I suggested that the three of us proceed on the basis of unanimity for the time being and there was no objection to that proposal (Gareth agreed to it explicitly). However, here and here, JTBX has made changes to the article without consulting and without consensus. So I know how he operates and it's not particularly attractive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you two have agreed to not edit without the 3rd party, then whoever did should have enough honor to revert back if they want to be able to demonstrate they have acted in good faith. That was a strong hint in case it wasn't obvious. And my point stands, that I simply noticed a lot of reverts, but as I said, wasn't drawing a conclusion. There are a lot of good reasons to have a lot of reverts. I have a lot of reverts on articles I watch for vandalism, like Ham, ironically. There are also bad reasons. I haven't seen enough to have an opinion, just to note the fact. Again, my goal is to get people to work together, not point fingers. I still reserve the right to point to facts along the way, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • My response taken from EJ's page: I originally thought of engaging Gareth but as you can see on his messages to Ring-Cinema he has other plans, trying to court me along falsely so that they can continue editing the article as if they own it. Besides it was a suggestion to contact Gareth and not written in stone, especially if he is clearly no longer acting as a neutral memeber. I have been busy but will open a RFc as that was the original plan. Ring's so called violations of mine are a joke. Look at the history, a user called Chaheel edited an improvement to the plot, cutting out two unnecessary words which I already had cut out in my plot draft I had put forward. But if I had put those improvements forward, I would have been reverted, (which actually heppened by Gareth), the acting neutral editor but in reality colluding with Ring to violate WP:PLOT and policy. Meat-puppetry?
  • If that isn't enough, Ring took the issue to the Adminstrators noticeboard wrongly, but admin Captain Screebo noticed he was a known edit warrior by looking through his history. We have already discussed it at Dennis's page, who noticed the same thing. Despite all of this, I still wanted to remain friendly with Gareth and reached out to him on his talk page, after editing The Godfather Part II, the second film, which had a plot of over 2,000 words. I cut it down after a lot of effort to about 1,200, but Gareth reverted my changes as unacceptable. Okay, I thought. But then I saw this User Talk: Ring Cinema, he immediately notified Ring and didn't even leave me a message, even though Part II has nothing to do with the conflict.
    • I'm not going to rehash every event here, or issue any decree or point fingers. I simply (and strongly) suggested that everyone involved act in the best of faith. I'm not the one who has to answer for anything later, you two are. I've already pointed you both to the proper venue, where there is a chance (but not a guarantee) that I may offer my experiences with this whole dispute. If I do, it won't be as a clerk, just as an observer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't suggest you revert again, because you would be setting yourself up for a 3RR block at the edit warring dept. Read WP:BRD for starters. I'm not impressed by the two reverts, but I'm also have concerns about the talk page at Ring Cinema.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Again I appreciate your input. DRN then? Well, Ring already reverted me 3 times in less than an hour for No Country for Old Men yesterday. Should I report this? I felt bad about possibly having Ring blocked and wanted give him yet another chance, I wanted us to talk it out on the discussion page and another editor is already helping. However he responded by calling me a nuisance and creating a new talk section angrily stating he doesn't agree with my edits instead of contributing to the discussion. Again he feels he "owns" the article.--JTBX (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, that's extremely inaccurate. I'm no edit warrior. I watch some pages that get a lot of vandals, which I'm sure is a positive. On the Captain Screebo thing, CS made a mistake, actually, and he was corrected immediately by an admin. (I'm not sure Captain Screebo is an admin.) The simple fact is, I'm editing in good faith, JT is ignoring EdJohnston's decision on editing at The Godfather. EJ suggested we both edit in concert with Gareth, and I have done so. JT only has observed that when Gareth agrees with him; that is not really what EJ was asking us to do. So this is how JT is disrupting. Instead of seeking a consensus, he tries to sully the reputation of anyone who disagrees with him. Ask Gareth about it. As you can see above, he was and is appalled by it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have left Ring and Gareth a message on the Godfather talk page. I am reporting them and no longer engaging with them directly. As you have noted, it is clear what they are trying to do (providing Gareth is not a sockpuppet) from their talk pages, and the fact that I am not being notifed enough to begin with. I appreciate your help. I have already gone down the consensus route but it is clear this user has no history of making compromise and simply using the same tactics with me, as is happening right now, we are getting nowhere. The Chaheel case is a perfect example. I placed the same edit he did, pushing for it in my draft for time, but when he came and edited it in, it was accepted by Gareth immediately. Actually it reminds me of that song. Screebo, as You and I, have seen this user's history. The beauty of Wikipedia is there is no hiding it. JTBX (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Everyone needs to back up and assume good faith here. If Ed has recommended you work with Gareth, then that is likely your best option. I don't know Gareth, but I trust Ed's judgement and until you have a better reason to not, I recommend that you do. Throwing the word "sock" around is not helpful in the least and isn't endearing yourself to me or anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to work with him. Thats the point. But I am no longer engaging with them. Also, a lot of what is happening now, appears to relate to this Wikipedia:Gaming the system. I will try a EAR first, then move onto DRN. JTBX (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gareth and I agreed to work on the basis of unanimity. Seems like the only practical alternative for now. As soon as Gareth didn't agree with him, JT violated EDJohnston's decision. On a talk page, JT claimed that EJ's decision was only advisory so he didn't have to follow it. So you can talk about good faith all you want, Dennis, but what would you think of that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
From [The Godfather] talk page:
Please note this edit has nothing to do with my previous edit, and I object to it being labelled as a continuation of my intentions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
What was she objecting to? Well, JT edited the plot summary (contrary to EdJohnston's decision) right after Chaheel Riens edited the page. JT summarized his completely unrelated edit "Updating Chahell's [sic] edit". Of course, he was doing no such thing and so Riens inserted the note above. This is interesting because Riens is the only new editor on the page since EdJohnston's decision. Almost immediately, Riens has had cause to object to JT's activity in a way that seems to call into question the accuracy of JT's statements. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Response

I did not call Leaf Green Warrior a racist. He or she is calling everyone else a racist. I called him or her a foolish troll. B-Machine (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Udar55 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your post in helping diffuse this situation. Udar55 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


Will you take a look at...

...this please when you get a chance? It's about to be archived in ANI with no resolution, and since we're dealing with someone I am assuming (in good faith) is a new user...someone who didn't understand why his source was unacceptable, felt rudely talked to, incorrectly referred to ANI as a result, was admonished for not knowing about the notification policy, had their article put up for AFD, and then accused of being a sockpuppet (case was declined)...I feel like the editor deserves some sort of closure on this. What exactly, if anything (maybe nothing), needs to be done, I have no idea, but I like the cut of your jib, so I am requesting that you take a look. Thanks, Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 19:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, he's gone. Thanks anyway Dennis. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 19:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah that was you. I've already opined there. A punt, essentially. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Request copy of the deleted UFC 143

Would you be so kind as to dump a copy of UFC 143 into Anna Frodesiak/Bronze sandbox? I will move it from there to my hard disk, and retain it. It may be a good candidate for improvement and restorataion in the future. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The pesky essay "WP:MMANOT"

Can an essay be used as a criterion for deletion?

This is at least the second time the essay WP:MMANOT has been cited: "The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT."

On at least one other occasion an article was deleted exclusively per that essay: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (2nd nomination) was closed with "...The result was delete.. Fails WP:MMANOT...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You can use anything you like as a criteria, I suppose, but essays alone are seldom successful as they can be freely ignored and do not reflect community consensus. I love it when someone uses an essay as a rationale against me, it is like lobbing me a slow pitch with bases loaded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just saw that it was the rationale for closing, not for a vote (sorry, long day...), and by a very experienced admin. I would go and approach him on his talk page if you think it was in error but it isn't a strong case. I'm not a fan of using an essay as a closing rationale in this type of case. This kind of stuff is going to keep happening until MMANOT is fixed and turned into something stronger like a guideline. As for the article quality, I have no idea, but doesn't sound good since this was the 3rd AFD delete for the same reason. I'm shocked it didn't get SALTed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruption of MMA notability guideline discussion

I've been busy off-wiki. I will be back soon at that page to encourage editors to stay on track, and refrain from posts that are not relevant to constructing the guideline. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis

I only started "studying you" because of the RfA thing (and I rarely comment / !vote at many), but I do feel I have to tell you that, having taken a good look at you, I liked what I saw. You have a nice mellowness about you, on the whole, and a sense of, well, sense! Of course, nobody's ever perfect, but I consider that you being an admin will generally raise the average standard of admins. (Now all you have to do is live up to it, lol!) I was impressed and pleased with your note on KW's talk page. Best, Pesky (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you, for both your words and deeds. I just didn't want to see the olive branch slapped out of my hand to be replaced with a bit of rope. Or were you referring to the first comment? ;) I see that he chose to strike a few comments on his page, which I take as a clear sign of good faith on his part. This was a misunderstanding that just escalated at too many levels due to the RfA. The details are meaningless at this point, and the sooner we move forward, the better. If he requests to be unblocked, I will support it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Peace now!

Hey, I'm a Quaker; I always seek peace. That is not the same as standing by and ignoring wrongdoing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • This is true, but I just couldn't resist the urge to comment in the rare situation where I supported a block and you don't. Being involved with the previous ANI they filed, I am concerned that they have a difficult time separating their personal beliefs from their obligations to be neutral here, and they are in for a rough ride. Even their closing statement was defiant and told me that they didn't "get it" at all. I fear that Salvio might have been too generous, too soon. Hopefully, time will show me otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

King Genovese

I have blocked King Genovese (talk) for a week - it seems the only way to get his attention, he has a serious case of IDHT. He had a final warning back on the 27th, then the ANI thread, and good advice from you and from Peridon; but today he has produced three more articles, Gabriel Mannarino a blatant copyvio, Dominick Alaimo which more or less asserted non-notability with the words "only remembered for attending the Apalachin Conference in 1957", and James Lanza, an unreferenced article which has been redirected. This is just a waste of everyone's time. I will now try to explain the problems, yet again, on his talk page, and then I will make a follow-up post at AN/I.

Congratulations on your new mop, by the way; feel free to ask advice any time, though you seem to be doing OK. I have found it in some ways a surprisingly lonely life - no-one tells you what to do or whether you're doing it right, you just get on and do what seems to need doing, and sometimes people kick and scream and sometimes they say thank you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking the time to congratulate me, the response from so many editors has been very heartwarming. As to King, we tried, we talked, we templated, we assumed the best of faith and have reached out in every way possible. Sometimes a temporary block is needed to shake them awake. While I hate to see someone blocked, I know that in this instance, every possible effort was made to not do so until it was truly the last resort. Thanks for updating me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Agent00f

I have delivered a final warning to the user for their generally disruptive editing on the MMA notability discussion with a direct warning that the next step will be a posting on AN asking for sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi, I just wanted to leave a note saying thank you for partcipating in my RFA, and your comments will be taken on board and acted upon. Hopfully, I will be of a level you can support in a future RFA. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 13:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • My pleasure! I think the world of you, and really do think you will be a great admin once you have a broader amount of experience in the different areas of Wikipedia. I was here over 5 and half years before seeking the bit. I watch RfAs, so I'm very likely to participate then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Please have a look at this (May): User:Yasht101/CSD_log I created the CATs there by mistake when I was creating assessment bar for Indian Premier League. Can you delete those CATs? Thanks Yasht101 16:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • If we learned one thing at my RfA, we learned that I should stay away from deleting ;) You might find G7 a better criteria though, and it will get deleted through the system faster. I really shouldn't tread there right now, as I indicated that I wouldn't and unless it was an emergency (negative BLP, etc) I would rather keep away from CSD, as I promised that I would and if I'm nothing else, I'm a man of my word. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

If you really really REALLY want to do some blocking, you need not watch ANI simply for a chance to block — feel free to pick on ThisIsaTest all you want :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I watch ANI to prevent blocks, actually. I'm much less inclined to use them than others, and try to work with editors and resolve problems more peacefully. That said, there are times when it is clearly called for, just not quite as often as it is used. Oh, I already blocked that user, very unsatisfying ;) Kind of like kissing your sister. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand; I was simply reacting to your "failure at blocking" comment. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh I know, I was just bragging that I had experienced good luck this week resolving disputes and wasn't forced to use it. Hopefully my luck will continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Awesome Smoker

I'm sure you've been asked this a million times, but where did you find that? Do you know anyone with any info on purchasing or building one?! Thanks. Zach

MMA Notability

Before you post, please don't. I'm done. Let someone else mediate or settle it the old fashioned way in AFD, but I don't want to be involved in it anymore. There are plenty of other places I can contribute to, with at least a chance that I can actually help. Months ago, I was told by admins and editors alike that the MMA project of Wikipedia was a toxic cesspool of hate, sockpuppets, obstructionists and fanboys, and that I was a fool if I tried to help. My experience has only proven them correct. I will no longer participate or mediate, and will simply ignore or remove discussions about it here. It isn't personal, but I've lost all objectivity in this matter, and all desire to be associated with the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help and mediate. You had a lot more patience with the process than I would have ever gotten close to. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed,you are a tireless contributor,will be an excellent Admin, and I applaud your efforts.This also explains to me why the ANI went unchecked.Thanks Dennis. I hope to work with you again in the future. And seek your help and advice.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Kids

Re: the Court Moor School business and dealing with children. My general experience with the really young, as in pre-teens, is that quiet removal of everything works best when confronted with kids sharing too much. Attempting dialogue tends to be tedious and unproductive. While we can all have a productive conversation with a ten-year-old in person (most of the time), it's nearly impossible via a text interface. You pretty much have to be boring and hope for a short attention span. Where school IPs are involved it's worse, so quiet negation seems to be the way to go, though at times a short, sharp warning may work if you have a sense of who you're talking to. I've had to request oversight of a lot of Too Much Information from kids, and at times I've just summarily blocked where it's clear that they're much too young to be here and are revealing too much. It would be nice to get their parents to explain why the internet's a dangerous place, but we can't do much about that. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I completely agree with that philosophy, I just had not seen it expressed or come across the situation as an admin yet. Then again, since you aren't leaving a lot of tracks, that would explain why I had not seen the topic before. I appreciate you taking the time to explain as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Convo on Talk page

Thanks for the advice! I've been trying to edit the core of articles less impulsively. I tend to get ideas of "Oh, I should add that!" more frequently than not while working on a page. I've been working off sandbox to get nice formatting on articles like The Economist so the pictures look okay and I'm not flooding the main page with edits. For new articles I tend to be less focused. Thanks for the comment! Shaded0 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • No prob. I had tagged one of your articles for PROD, then you improved it, so I just wanted to help you keep from getting pestered with PROD tags in the future. I'm heading to bed now, but can offer you some ideas for sandboxes later if you like. For instance, I name my sandboxes the same name that I'm going to use in the mainspace, and link them on my user page. I still have my "official" sandbox, but I use that for testing code, etc. An example would be User:Dennis Brown/D.H. Griffin Companies and User:Dennis Brown/Barbecue in North Carolina, two articles that I'm slowly working on. This lets others help me, then I just do a MOVE, so all the talk page and edit history is preserved. This is good because I get others to help sometimes, and it is required so they get credit for their contribs. Let me know if I can help you in any way. I'm not a great author, but I've learned some ways to make it easier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense, I didn't know that's how you made new sandbox pages, I just knew about the My Sandbox page. Don't quite understand how you do a move that keeps all the version history though. Also, do you have any advice on how to improve an article to Good Article status? Shaded0 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've never had a GA status article, but others can help you with that. Wikipedia:Good articles is the place to learn and get help with that. As to the sandboxes, go ahead and create a new sandbox, which is basically the same as creating the new new article but naming it User:Shaded0/Articlename and get it ready. Moving is done at the top of the page, under "Page" then "Move Page" which pops up a menu. It says "To new title:" Choose "article", remove your name from the title, give an inital reason such as "ready to move into mainspace". It will turn the old page into a redirect unless you uncheck the one box. Sometimes I leave that alone, sometimes I uncheck it. You are basically just renaming it, but it puts it into mainspace with all the history. Best of all, no more stress of being rushed to improve it before someone tags it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda realized yesterday how quickly people will find your article after creating it and tag it for deletion. I'm working on a new article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shaded0/PeaceCoffee for Peace Coffee and the article got tagged right away for deletion. So I'm getting the help of another guy to bring it up to notable article status. Thanks for the advice Dennis, starting to get a better hang of how things work in the Wikipedia community. Shaded0 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Many people, myself included, patrol Special:NewPages, so it only takes a few seconds for a few dozen people to see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Bioinformatics Companies

Hi Dennis, I am writing to tell you that I am undoing you removal of my entry for GSL Biotech LLC. You stated that "Primary link is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Removing from list." I am not sure why you are using this reasoning. Other companies on that list are also using primary links. The company has a marketed product and is clearly in this business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenyalo (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Other companies on the list have articles on Wikipedia with a variety of links. If I find others that are redlinked (no article) and have only primary links, I will remove them as well. If you think the company is notable, then you should use WP:AfC to start the article, then there is certainly ample reason to include them in the list. I will review the list later and see if any others need removing. If you need help on creating the article, let me know and I will point you to some guides that can help. WP:AfC would be the way to get started on it though, as you can get some active help, it won't get speedy deleted, and once it is "ready for prime time", you just ask to get it put into the actual encyclopedia and it only takes a minute to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked, and all those other companies have articles here, but not the company you added. Those articles have links to their website, but they have other links as well, and have demonstrated they are notable by virtue of having an article. For instance, if one of the companies articles was deleted, then I would remove them from that list. WP:42 might be worth a look. But you need to leave that company out until you create an article on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenyalo (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi Dennis, I've replied with a few thoughts at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Speedy Delete. I was just thinking, would it be useful to set up a Speedy Delete discussion page here in your user space somewhere? I'd watchlist it, and it could be a useful central place to keep speedy deletion discussions - to be used at your own pace, as and when something comes up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I've added a CSD Training link at the top of this page. I'm still going in and looking for articles to tag CSD as a non-admin, but at a very slow rate. Like any habit you want to change from bad to good, it will take time. I'm also being more cautious with AFDs, although my record there is fairly strong. While I think my problem with CSD was a bit overstated, I recognize that the bar is higher on this side of the mop and this will be a positive for me as it is my biggest weakness. I've stayed out of CSD mopping and will while we work on this, if for no reason other than I'm a man of my word and respect the opinions and faith given at the RfA. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer Rights

Per the RfC on pending changes, which looks as if it is going to turn out in favour of their BLP use, could you grant me reviewer rights? Thanks. --Gilderien 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I've only had admin rights for about 10 days, and I would rather wait until I'm a bit more experienced before I grant any rights to anyone. It isn't a reflection of your experience, only of mine. I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions which is how I got my filemover and rollback rights before I became an admin. It usually only takes a day or two, but the admins that clerk that section are better experienced at determining suitability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I asked you because you were the most recently active admin on my watchlist, but thanks for the pointer :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't a request for reviewer section. I presume that's because the RfC isn't over yet. I'll ask someone else.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Comic relief

Sorry to have made anyone wince. It was a spontaneous urge. I try not to make a habit of it, since I tend to find it irritating myself when outside editors use jokes in a dispute to seemingly belittle an issue. Everyone seemed more or less on the same side here though. ...and "block now or wait" reminded me of the "shoot him now or wait til you get home" sketch from Looney Tunes (a classic). Thanks for putting it in the correct perspective at least. Equazcion (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh, sometimes a completely inappropriate comment is perfectly appropriate ;) As I said, it got both a wince and a smile, which means it was probably effective. It actually got a little more than a smile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Andy Dingley

Hi Dennis, whereabouts has this matter got to? Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems to have slipped into the archive, what does this mean? Sorry ,I have no experience of this ANI process. Eddaido (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It gets put into the archive if no one has talked in that section in over a day. Your best bet for help in this is actually User:ThatPeskyCommoner aka: Pesky. I said as much in that ANI. You should go to her talk page and continue what she already started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. Can I back it out of the archive? Eddaido (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
You can, but I don't recommend it. ANI isn't a kind place. Pesky is a kind person. You will fare better just dealing with her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that and do a restart if necessary. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a restart is necessary. I strongly suggest you speak with Pesky and take her advice on board. Being new here, you might want to exercise caution with going to ANI. Again, it is like shark infested waters, and sometimes the one making the claim ends up getting blocked. You can trust Pesky, I certainly do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, at the moment it has been a complete waste effort for me. I don't like to make more work for a volunteer but its not me that's making it. Eddaido (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem is a communications issue. It is helpful to understand that sometimes the things we say may come across to others more strongly than we were intending them to. This is due to cultural differences. This is why I referred you to Pesky, to help prevent issues in the future. As to Andy, I haven't forgotten. Not all things are handled by a decree or simple fix. You are both good contributors. My goal is to get you both back to contributing, and not mad at each other. Again, I think communications is part of the problem. This is why I recommended Pesky, who is not an admin, just a friend whom I trust a great deal with communications issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken

FYI. Despite his strong protestations to the contrary, BMK has gradually backed down on the weirder of his idiosyncratic edits, to the point where pre-navbox whitespace is really the only one left. But this has been going on for literally years and you're not the first (and sadly, likely not the last) to try a friendly note. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Where there is hope, I try. At the very least, the problem didn't require I act that very minute, since the page is protected, and if he jumps back to it, then there is already a "warning" on his page. Just because I'm polite, doesn't make it less of a warning. I'm going off wiki for a few days, and that will help any other admin wanting to jump in if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Iloveandrea

Sorry to post this for you, but as the blocking admin, you might want to take a look at this diff, which I reverted here. It's his first edit after coming back from the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan had given good advice, and I backed it up on their talk page. We will see. I'm not inclined to move on this one edit, and they've only had one more since then, and I'm on the way to bed and not going to be in a good place to play admin for several days, so it will have to be handled by others. I was very generous in my block previously, maybe too generous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis, Iloveandrea seems to have backed off for the moment, so I agree no need to take action. Also, another editor has contriuted to the discussion on the Talk page, which is helpful. Your block length was what you thought best (obviously always a judgment call), and you invited other admins to change it and no one did, so that was that. I'll bother someone else if he goes at it again. Sleep well and enjoy your days off.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

George Osborne

Hey, buddy. My first edit back was simply to undo a totally unexplained reversion by Youreallycan. I had been going through, before the block hit, removing POV language and balancing the article up. He ignored all of these things I had done and reverted it back without any discussion at all. It might be added that his reversion mangled the article, and introduced a vast swath of duplicate material; the stuff on austerity has its own article. I am leaving the article now anyway. I have left my desired additions with someone I believe is neutral, user called Wnt, and it will be up to him to try and get my perfectly sourced additions through the two pro-Tory filters. As I told Wnt, I have owned up to my POV, have attempted to address it, but these two will not even own up to their own POV. Who is more reasonable? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a similar problem on the Mervyn King (economist) article, though a different pro-Tory filter is in action there. I cannot even get Financial Times citations past them over there. It is ridiculous. The King article suffers from the same deficiencies in tone and balance that I introduced to the Osborne article, but I am now trying to rectify and being met with tedious stonewalling. Kinda irritating, not to mention the tone adopted. They then have the gall to complain that I have a go back. You speak nicely to me, then I speak nicely to you. Nice and easy. If you want to see some of my less POV contribs, check out the Mau Mau Uprising article. I pretty much wrote the entire thing. Needs a lot of work still, doesn't even make clear where Mau Mau came from, but it's not in bad shape. Wrote a whole section, on the German role, for the Greek government-debt crisis article too, plus many other smaller edits. Iran sanctions... Peter Beinart... various historians, Eric Hobsbawm... There are others, this lot have simply brought out my worst side on my worst articles. I'm not all bad, really. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you are all bad, and if you take the same tone on the article talk page that you have here, then I'm sure everything will be fine. We all have bad days. I have found some articles and areas that bring out the worst in me, so I literally avoid them. Others, I can discuss and debate all day, but I keep rational. You just have to be sure this is a topic you can be comfortable with if the consensus is against your ideas. I don't know, I didn't get into the content of the article, I focused only on the behavior. You guys don't need admins dictating content any way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible personal information revealed

Dennis Brown,I've noticed this edit (see link below) by an IP that alleges they know the person and appears to reveal where someone goes to school. This information may or may not be correct but I think just to be on the safe side it should be revdeled. I was going to e-mail this to the address at ANI but my e-mail didn't recognise the address so I thought telling an admin was the right thing to do. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[24]

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, however the current version of the page is still showing the information. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you got it, thanks again. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


I'm back!

Gonna take a day or three to get caught up, I was in Vegas for a tradeshow and only had the Kindle Fire for several days so didn't try to keep up here. Penn & Teller: Best. Show. Ever. If I missed something important, let me know here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad you had a nice time in USA.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm a native yank that lives on the East Coast of the USA. I have a nice time the USA every day! ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Vegas may be part of the US, but it's a separate territory. Glad you had a good time and glad you're back.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Vegas is CERTAINLY a whole different planet. Fun place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. I used to go once every year or two, but it has been a while. And thanks to you both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikolic

Kudos. As you've no doubt noticed, we don't agree on Moreschi's block. However, I thought your disagreement explanation at ANI was admirably articulated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I try to walk the fine line between "making my point" and "respecting the other admin". Respect is much easier to get when you give it up front. There is a distinct lack of this type of civility here, hopefully it is contagious. And if we always agreed with each other, then there would never be the opportunity to learn from each other. Besides, when we disagree, it is on the interpretation of something small, not on the general principals. And thank you for the kind words, I always appreciate your perspective, as much when we agree as when we disagree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I absolutely believe that civility, just like incivility, is contagious. Quite some time ago I lived in Atlanta. A significant portion of the Atlantan population were transplants from the Northeast where southern civility is not generally recognized. However, in many ways the transplants adapted and became more civil. For example, people wouldn't honk at the car in front of them one second after the light turned green and the car didn't move - they would patiently wait. Another example: people would actually cede the right of way for others to come out of driveways. Then, I came back to California, and within a short time, someone had flipped the bird at me for making a perfectly legal U-turn, just because it inconvenienced them. Ain't life grand?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is. I did notice a dramatic increase in ANIs and AFDs after I left MMANOT. While I was there, it was a little easier to get people to be civil simply by the example I tried to project. Now the place is more uncivil than ever due to a few, and one in particular. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The amount I know about WP:MMANOT you could put on the head of a pin with room left over.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Iloveandrea

I thank you for your note in Iloveandrea talk page.But I think there are larger problem he frequently tag editors that he don't agree as "pro-Israeli" I think such remarks are not good and goes against WP:CIVIL also he have BLP problem [25] I am not sure 100% that is violation but its very borderline.--Shrike (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with your concerns. Keep in mind that just the other day I had blocked them for 72 hours, their third block. The next block will be much longer. At this point, I can say that all good faith efforts to help them "reform" have been tried and if they choose to ignore it, then any admin that wanders across the next incivility will have full license to react strongly, and an ANI discussion won't really be needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You might also notice that he and I have talked above on this page. I do try to resolve issues without blocks when it is possible, and extend the maximum amount of rope I can to someone. Whether they use it to climb out of the hole, or hang themselves, is up to them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How reports at RFPP get cleared

Hello Dennis. Thanks for helping at RFPP. Do I conclude from your recent comment at ANI that you haven't used the semi-automated clerking script? See User:Rami_R/rfppClerk.js. It has a documentation page at User:Rami R/rfppClerk. If you want to use it and have any questions, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Dennis, I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for the kind words of condolence on my talk page. It has been a difficult two days at the moment, and my sleep pattern has certainly been disrupted as a result. Strangely enough though, I have found comfort (of some degree) in just reflecting back on my previous contributions, re-reading every single one of them. I suppose its my way of dealing with the past and finding a way forward into the future. There was one user on here who became a little insensitive towards myself hours after the news was received; and it did upset my slightly, but I asked them to remove/rephrase the comment on my talk page which they did. Although there have since written another comment on their own talk page saying they have "doubts I am being serious about this bereavement". That to me is disrespecting myself, my family, and my late mother. But I suppose that is life, and it is something I shall have to live to just ignore. The funeral itself isn't until May 21, so between now and then, I shall continue to contribute to the best of my capacity. Again thank you for being such a kind-hearted and understanding guy at this difficult time. Wesley☀Mouse 12:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just found this comment which has distressed me even more. Perhaps returning to contribute is too soon. Wesley☀Mouse 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I've offered my own observation there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I put my 2 cents worth in too, but I may have come across in anger with it. If I have, I do apologize. Wesley☀Mouse 13:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It is probably best to just take a wikibreak for a little bit. You have more important things to deal with right now, and you can't depend on everyone here having the proper amount of sensitivity. Everyone is always more rude on the internet, after all. You really don't need to deal with their ignorance at this time, and the only way to avoid it is to avoid Wikipedia for a few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check out the "help" thread you started on Drmies' talk page. I'm very much swaying towards your initial proposal now after what another editor has written. Although perhaps sending them on a Wikiquette course would be even better - you know, like when people get sent on adoption course to assist them in areas they do wrong, send those two editors to wikiquette school. Wesley☀Mouse 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Query

Re your comment here, could you possibly clarify what you mean by "underlying issues"? Prioryman (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • YRC's issues are centered around incivility and being hasty, which shows itself at times even when his is not reverting anything, such as in discussions. Limiting the number of times he can revert doesn't address this. It would be treating a single symptom but not the core problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I take your point. I've noticed on several occasions that his contributions to discussions are, shall we say, not entirely coherent or well-thought-out. It's something I alluded to in my comment about five key behaviours. To be absolutely honest I'm not convinced that he is temperamentally suited to editing in potential high-stress areas like BLP. However, I think the more immediate problem is the conduct violations that keep earning him blocks. Let's see if we can get those sorted out first. Thanks for making an offer to mentor him, by the way - I had suggested something like that last December but nobody followed through, which was very disappointing. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand the frustration and appreciate the objectivity here. I don't know if I can help him, but it is worth a try. It is up to him. He does have a lot of good qualities that would be extraordinarily helpful here if he could learn a few techniques to deal with disputes. This makes the effort to help him potentially worthwhile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Incivility

OK, I'll knock it off. From my brief read of what someone else said they added, which I deliberately didn't bother to check myself, I concluded that they were racists. Members, without distinction, of an ethnic group are something bad is the archetypal racist statement. They seem to have said something like Pakistanis have a propensity to paedophilia, and I'll repeat what I said on my post: Can you imagine the reaction if someone posted something about Jews having a propensity to paedophilia, citing some right-wing Saudi website? I will leave these people to their own devices, but I do not think they merit the time of day. I would say I'll stay away from Israel-Palestine articles (I am, however, steering clear completely from the Osborne and King articles), and thereby the unsavoury people that post on them, but then they win. They can run amok. I shall hold my tongue in future, because I find Wikipedia a nice way to cement my knowledge into place. That's my main reason for posting. I remember stuff I've added to Wikipedia better than through passive reading, and if, from time to time, someone finds anything useful in what I've relayed, so much the better. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • If you think someone is making a wild claim, the key is to ask for outside assistance. An objective opinion. As for avoiding certain articles, I do the exact same thing. Certain topics make me boil, and I have no choice but to stay away from them or risk losing my own objectivity. Most people see me as a fairly civil person, but believe me when I say that there are times when I would like to reach through the computer screen and choke the life out of someone. However, I don't let someone else's ignorance or abuse dictate how I react to them. I don't allow others that kind of power over me, and I wait until the blood pressure returns to normal, then either ignore, or react in a way that is more likely to persuade others to my point of view. It isn't easy, but it is more effective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

SPI notifications

I'm not sure if you didn't notify the suspect purposely so I didn't add this myself (it's not mandatory) but {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} is the way, FYI. Equazcion (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I generally do not notify. In fact, it is somewhat discouraged "Notification is not mandatory, and in some cases may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement." per WP:SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I know, figured I'd mention it though since you noted somewhere that you weren't adept at starting SPIs so it stood to reason you might've overlooked it. As long as you keep your bullet points formatted correctly in the future there's no problem. Equazcion (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Presidential residences

Okay Dennis, I need your help and advice. Three months ago I posted a merge proposal on

all three of which glaringly overlap with List of residences of Presidents of the United States and IMO should be merged into that one. Not a soul has responded yea or nay since then, so I assume nobody objects or even cares.

Problem is, I know how to move a page (I think) to a new, not-already-in-use page, but this obviously is a trickier kind of move and a bit above my pay grade. Can you advise on how best to proceed with the nuts and bolts of this triple merger without losing article histories and talk pages, etc.? Textorus (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I haven't done a lot of those, so going from limited memory here. Lets break it down: I'm assuming you are going to move content from the individual articles, into new subsections of the existing article, turning the old articles into redirects. I'm guessing you know how to make the redirect, which is easy enough by replacing the content of the old article with #REDIRECT [[article name#section name]]. If you are not moving any material, then you simply turn the old article into the redirect, preferably to a proper section. If you are moving material, I believe you make the edit summary say "Merging data from Summer White House to new article via merge discussion" in the edit summary. Since you are not deleting the old article, the history still remains, and your summary is the pointer to it. I think that is all you need to do. If you were deleting the old articles (no need here) it would get more complicated and I would have to ask for more help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so after copying content to the mother article, I blank the page on each sub-article and replace what was there with #REDIRECT [[article name#section name]]? Plus an edit summary as you suggest. That seems easy enough (WP:REDIRECT is not entirely clear to me on all this), so I'll give it a go and see if I get yelled at.
But before I start creating redirects, I wonder if the mouthful title List of residences of Presidents of the United States should be renamed first, as it is really more than just a simple list - though I suppose some some condensing and regrouping could be done. What do you think? Textorus (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You would need to start a discussion on the talk page of the article if you want to change the name, as I would expect at least a few people would disagree. Personally, I would recommend making the changes you are already working on first. Changing the redirects later is trivial. The name is long, but it seems appropriate as it needs to be that specific to be accurate. Then propose a move on the talk page and see what happens over a couple of weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think people would disagree about shortening the title (say to "Residences of Presidents of the United States") when in three months not a single soul has made any comment at all on my three proposed mergers. Be that as it may, I notice that Wikipedia:Redirect#Double_redirects says that the software will not follow more than one redirect, and if a target page is moved, then all the other redirects pointing to it will have to be changed. Well, let me think this over; I really should probably have left it alone as a big scattered mess and not gotten involved with all this tedious detail. Textorus (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
But changing the directs is trivial. You just go any page, and click "what links here" then change those articles. Ok, it takes a few minutes, but it is easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
It's all the little trivial wikidetails that keep sprouting like hydra's heads that work my nerves. But I've just merged all three of those babies into the target article, and left the title of the latter alone. Now somebody ought to go through and clean up redundant info there, but that's all I have time for tonight. Thanks for your help, Dennis. Textorus (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem, the best thing to do is come back here tomorrow, remind me, and I can walk you through the trivial details. Every detail a Wikipedia is easy, there are just a lot of them. Once you do it a time or two, it get easy to figure out how to do something similar but different. The only way to do it is to do it. I will walk you through stuff if it helps, you will catch on quick enough with just a little practice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_3&oldid=1142458241"