User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Trying to contact you by email

Hi Dennis,

I have been trying to contact you by email for several hours to get you advice about appealing a grossly unfair topic ban, but somebody has blocked my email access to Wikipedia. I would appreciate knowing who has blocked my email access. LittleBen (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• My email is working fine and you haven't been blocked from email access, so I'm not sure what the problems is. I've yet to have a coffee, but reviewing the case ever so briefly, it would appear you need to contact the Arbitration Committee for review, as the blocking admin has indicated that this is where he expects to take the case. Once a case is escalated to Arb, there isn't anything that a lone admin can do to assist you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Uh, no. An editor saying "I'm taking this to ArbCom!" doesn't act a magic trump card to stop all discussion. I encourage you to review the rev-del'd comments on User_talk:LittleBenW and make your own assessment of the situation. NE Ent 11:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Just a brief comment from me - the block was not because of the topic ban directly, so I don't see any problem with discussion relating to that to continue outside of ArbCom, by email. As for my reason for the block, that can not be adequately seen by examining the rev-deleted edits - I have further private information that is pertinent, and which I have passed on with permission to ArbCom. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) If Boing! claims to be taking this to Arbcom, and I've never been involved in the case before, I tend to observe and not jump into the fray unless I have something to offer in the discussion or see a mistake or abuse. I've already spent the morning reading over the case and the RevDel'ed edits, but don't have an opinion as of yet. Don't mistake my reluctance to jump in uninformed as being apathetic or indifferent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That's reasonable, but not exactly what your 11:19 UTC post seemed to be saying. NE Ent 12:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I had already looked at enough of the case that it was doubtful I was going to get involved at this time. Understanding Boing!'s reluctance to go to Arb in general, I was confident that he was serious and this wasn't an idle claim. Even with that brief look, it was obvious that there were gaps and inconsistencies that I wouldn't be able to obtain onwiki, and I wasn't willing to go revert anything on the way to Arb unless it is a clear mistake or case of abuse. It's an admin thing, I suppose, you get a sense for when there is more than meets the eye, after seeing similar circumstances from this side of the bit. That doesn't mean I walk away, and I continue to monitor, but it means I respond as soon as possible, in a way that doesn't create false hope. Trust, but verify. I trust Boing! based on a long history of interaction and observation, but I still continue to read and observe to verify. And I didn't discourage Ben from emailing me. And forgive me if I wasn't clear enough, as I said, I hadn't had my first cup of joe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I support having a self-block, please guide me through the process

Hello, I support having a self-block after engaging in counter-productive and hostile behaviour in the past few weeks. I am not in good shape to be editing here due to addictive complications of my behaviour here. Please guide me through the process.--R-41 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• email me and explain. I will hold the contents of our emails in the highest confidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What is your e-mail?--R-41 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker): Typically admins won't block people upon request (a rare few do, most don't). You can, however, "block" yourself with the WikiBreak Enforcer. Just set it for a certain time in the future (a day, a week, a month, your choice) and you will be on an enforced wikibreak (or a self-block). You won't be able to sign back in until the wikibreak is over, so don't make it for a long period of time or forever. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • • (talk page stalker)For Dennis's email, look in the "toolbox" section of this page for the link that says "Email this user". Click that, and you'll get a form that will automatically be sent to his email when you submit it. LadyofShalott 04:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • R-41 doesn't have email enabled, he'll have to do that if he wants to send Dennis the email that way, but I think a script enforced wikibreak is the best option. R-41, if you don't feel comfortable with the instructions, you can tell an admin how long you want the wikibreak to be for and they can add the code to your .js page for you. Ryan Vesey 04:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is the link to email me from here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I checked it there, it says I need permission to do send an e-mail to you via Wikipedia. Will this be a lengthy process to get that permission accepted?--R-41 (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You need to add an email address to your account here, then it will email you, you click "verify" and login, and you are done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Do you think this guy is a sock of Rinpoche? Ottava thinks so, and wanted me to ping you, since you might be able to take action on it. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tell Ottava I said hello. Only a few edits, but I will keep an eye out and do some comparing. All of Rinpoche's socks are stale for CU purposes, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, looking at that one article, it seems rather obvious. Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Just asking for an opinion but does this article: Waltham 9/11 murders go against WP:BLP I don't see any info connecting the two brothers to this crime its all alleged. Thanks for any feedback you can give this just does not feel right to me is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest taking the issue to WP:BLPN, as there is some concern. I don't work that board regularly so I'm not the best authority on where we draw the line with BLPCRIME, but there is enough concern to warrant raising the issue with those that do. It is sourced, so I'm not likely to go cowboy and revert it out, but he wasn't formally charged and this does seem too weak a connection for us to put in that article at this time, that they are "investigating" only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrupt librals?

In your entire comment, all you did was cite my block log and say a bunch of lies. As Daniel said, and as I would have said, this is all you had. But apparently a 3-2 consensus is enough to close an appeal not even a day after it was made. So what if I did things in the past? How can that effect if I should be banned for something completely different now? Have you ever been pulled over for speeding or not wearing your seatbelt? BOSTON MARATHON TERRORIST = Denny's Libral Logic

How can I have a "facination with using Twitter" when I have never used it as a source before now? Oh, and no one has "told [me] that this is often clearly against policy". Can you please point out where I used Twitter as a source after I was told it's against policy? Because that never happened. And what about Bearman's comment that I was told "warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions"? Are you aware Bearman himself made that comment? Still doubt that he thinks he's an Admin?

And not one single person paid any attention to the fact I'm banned from Armenian articles even though this had nothing to do with Armenian articles, as I pointed out. If you were the fair, libral Admin you claim to be, you would see the need to remove this ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Shadow, actually I like you, believe it or not. I'm afraid you are going to end up getting indef blocked if you don't pull back from the way you are dealing with this. I think there was two problems with your request: It was too early, and the tone was wrong. You are upset, you feel wronged, I get it, but you hurt yourself when you take that tone there.
• As for your tone here, it doesn't bother me. I'm an old guy, and I get plenty of vitriol here, but mainly in the hard core business world. I'm pretty hard to rattle, and don't take it personal. All I can say is that I was honest, I used my best judgement and I still maintain the opinion. It's fine if you disagree, and its fine if you are mad about it. But do yourself a favor and don't take it out on other editors, as you just hurt your own case in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis, please get off the approaching 50 old guy kick. You're not 50 yet, and when you are, you won't be "old". I'll let you know when you're old.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Get off my lawn. -db

I'm not trying to offend you and I appreciate your sympathy. But I still think the ban should be removed and I can defend my case against anyone. It's not too early, it can only be too late to remove a wrongly placed ban. Unless you have better reasoning than that, please remove it. I can't accept all these back-to-back blocks and bans; my sandbox gets to huge and crashes my computer. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't sympathy, I wouldn't insult you that way. It is genuine concern, not only that the next block will end up being an indef, but for what is best for Wikipedia. I'm not always "right" (whatever that means), but I do try to balance those two things: humans and encyclopedia. I'm not in favor of leaving the ban in place forever, but I do think it is best to leave in place for now. You can create multiple sandboxes or subpages, and yes, I would be happy to show you how. It is very easy to start and manage. And it is always fine if you disagree with me, I disagree with some of my best friends here quite often. I will always listen, even if I disagree. The key is to not be disagreeable when you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If this three-month timeframe wasn't coming off another, then maybe I'd accept this, but I'm getting very sick of being unable to contribute. If block log history is enough to ban me again, then an indef seems inevitable, doesn't it? And I'm sure Bearman won't stop messing with my work by then because that's all he really does. The Admins are not at all concerned he threatens me with sanctions?

I want someone who can tell me why that's ok, when I was warned Twitter isn't reliable, how I can be banned from Armenian articles even though I didn't edit any, why a block log can result in a ban, etc. If no one can, it doesn't seem crazy to ask for this ban to be taken down. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No response? If you cannot justify a ban, remove it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You aren't the only iron I have in the fire today, friend, and your "question" (which was more of a statement) seemed more rhetorical than anything else. I have no authority to "remove it" anyway. Part of the problem that you bring upon yourself is your demeanor when making the request. Demanding anything around here usually ends poorly for the one on the demanding side. If you take an "all or nothing" approach around Wikipedia, the usual reply is "nothing". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not rhetorical. No single person can justify this ban. I tried being kind but dmins simply refuse to take off this wrongly placed ban. I tried appealing it and it was closed in less than a day when the consensus was 3-2. This is complete bullshit. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand you're frustrated, but nothing I can say or do is going to fix this problem today. I can't think of anything else to say that I haven't already said. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What else can I do? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you at least have the power the change the ban to Iranian and/or MMA articles? Because again, Gegard Mousasi has nothing to do with Armenia. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't unilaterally change the terms of a community determined sanction. Admin do not have the authority to do that as they serve the community, not the other way around. For now, all you can do is wait. I know you don't want to hear that, but that is all I can give you. You could appeal to Arbcom, but I think it would be a huge mistake, full of drama, headaches, and with a bad ending. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well then.. Can my AN discussion at least be opened again? It was closed way to quickly (and while I was sleeping no less). I remember a discussion not to long ago about someone with a swastika on their user page that took at least three days to finish. Mine took less than one day. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As it was User:NE Ent that closed it, you might ask him, although his closing rationale seemed pretty clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to accept Wikipedia is run by facism. So in another month will you support my ban being removed? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize how odd that request is. In an way, you are saying I'm part of a fascist organization but asking for my help. I will be happy to review the case in a month and give my honest opinion, but whether it is lifted or not really depends on you and how you interact with others and abide by the terms of the existing topic ban. As always, I'm open minded, but if you keep calling everyone here fascists, it won't really matter what I think at that time. I'm stymied, frankly, that you don't understand why others are concerned. It doesn't mean you have agree with them, but I hoped you would at least be able to empathize enough to understand their perspectives. Continuing to battle it out and act in a defiant manner isn't going to get the ban lifted, again, regardless of what I think about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A brief note

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.

---

Could you please take a look at this MfD. Given the statements made by MZMcBride, I would prefer a more neutral and less condescending close. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• The user in question has refused to address my concerns. I do not appreciate being attacked for standing up for my beliefs. Two statements that I particularly don't care for are "At least, as others have noted, this userbox can be used to mark editors who hold extreme views and they can be judged accordingly" and "...let the community be the judge of editors who hold this view." I do not see how condescending remarks such as those can in any way contribute to the functioning of this community. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I wonder how displaying a caricature depicting one of the most influential scientists in human history as an ape on your user page contributes to the functioning of this community. Our goal here is to create resources that allow every human being to freely share in the sum of all knowledge. I'd recommend focusing on that. You get to keep your userbox, but you'll undoubtedly be judged by your colleagues for the extreme and irrational view you hold. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Was he injecting opinion in a close? Yes. He started the discussion and he ended it 27 hours later rather than have it drag on and cause more drama, so I give credit where it is due, and try to overlook the editorializing in the close itself. It wasn't a personal attack by any stretch and not particularly harsh, just snippy. All I can offer is an example. As a point of comparison, look up on my talk page at the section labelled "Corrupt librals?". How should I have reacted after being called a liar, implied to be unfair and worse yet, a liberal? Sometimes it is best if you can overlook little things and focus on the merits. I know it feels personal, but it actually isn't, his concern was the (political) ideas behind the userbox, not you personally.

Now, MZMcBride has been been here longer than me, used to be an admin, and he already knows it was inappropriate, but in a minor way. He knows this. I'm not going to link any policy or try to "educate" him as he probably knows more about policy than I do. The MfD itself appears to have been in good faith, but the close was a bit rude and does have a sour grapes tone to it, and honestly, if we traded places, I think you would say the same thing. Regardless of the sincerity of your convictions, you are a better editor than to get pointy that way, and you know it just causes drama, and causes guys like me to get thrown in the middle. You don't owe me any favors, and I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but I am asking you to please reword it in a more neutral fashion. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

While I must make it very clear that I personally have zero respect for the author of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, I am willing to look into changing the userbox image. I would still like an explanation on the tone of the MfD closure, which currently makes me sound inferior. My views are not extreme or irrational, and I refuse to make any compromise on my beliefs. Truth is truth and the creation of the universe is a truth that scientists will never be able to retroactively change. I stand by my position. If people do not want me defending my beliefs, I would suggest that they not be attacking them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure his explanation is going to help, and I don't encourage it. I've learned a long time ago, people are going to have wildly different opinions on some subject, like evolution, gun control, global warming, socialism, etc. You know what I think about these things? Exactly my point, I don't hide them, but I don't know that anyone here knows how I feel about politics. It doesn't matter, I just edit in a neutral way using the sources and avoid debate on political issues that aren't a part of building the encyclopedia. I respect others deciding to voice their opinions, but we are all better off if we don't use Wikipedia to debate them. That isn't what we do here. Again, I think that McBride was having an issue with the box, not you personally. After all, you didn't create it, and it is a few years old. This is why I've politely asked McBride to just modify his own close, as I'm really not wanting to go close it myself, and I'm hoping that can serve as an olive branch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but remember that I didn't start this. McBride was the one who removed the userbox from my userpage without any discussion, then MfD'd it when I pointed out that might be a better course of action. While I can't complain about his nominating it for deletion, I will make it clear that I don't appreciate being treated like I'm some sort of extremist. As an aside, I have changed the image so the userbox no longer displays an offensive image. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And McBride hasn't posted online since my first comment here, and I'm still hopeful he will meet you in the middle when he does come back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I took another look at the closing statement of the deletion discussion. It seemed fine to me. But I truncated it for you.

AutomaticStrikeout: I thought you'd left us for good when I removed the userbox from your user page. From looking at the timeline of events, it seems I was actually the one to bring you back to life!

Thank you for changing the userbox image. I appreciate it. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for amending your close. I didn't expect it to be resolved this painlessly. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:12, 23 April 2013 (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.

With my apologies

[1]. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem, friend, I don't own the place, I just work here. I figured odds were 50/50 someone would revert. I was of the mind that continuing the discussion would only make it worse and they weren't going to kiss and make up no matter what we said. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, he ended up blocked. Not my favorite ending, but one I was afraid would happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Huh, that's weird. I didn't even see that part of his comment (maybe because it was indented as if it were another editor's); I guess I just read it for the details of the copyvio and went from there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, he has slipped that in somewhat casually, hence my reference to Team America: World Police, after previously admitting he was being a dick. I can't blame for the block, his attitude was over the top, but I was hoping he would back down a bit and "get it". Probably being too optimistic. Not naive, just optimistic. And I don't blame Drmies for reverting either, I knew the close was really premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, if he had backed down just a little bit. I happen to know SummerPhD a bit: the amount of shit she has to deal with is pretty daunting. Now I'm going to look at that thread to see what happened; I've been a bit busy elsewhere. Hey, Dennis, WK, and anyone else--please have a look at Cultural intelligence while you got nothing better to do. I disagree with another editor about how much space to devote to a particular strategy currently employed in the US military; they say a ton, I say a little. The edit history indicates I'm getting tired of it and have tried to actually improve the article with secondary sources; the US material is all done with primary sourcing. Dennis, it's a job for someone of your talent--an editor retainer who also knows what's up. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Hmm, an interesting case. That section is lifted more or less directly from the source. (where it's not verbatim, it's close paraphrasing). The source is a US government work, so it's presumably PD, but it also isn't authorized for release to the public (it's marked as unclassified for official use only, and this sure isn't official), so I wonder if it's not allowed on Wikipedia. I mean, one way or another it's plagiarism, since the direct lifting is unacknowledged (just citing it like any other source doesn't cut it IIRC), but are there other legal issues? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, after the most noncommittal agreement from my request for a second opinion I've ever received, I've decided to remove the offending material. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
              • See, in my opinion that's just a sound editorial decision, plagiarism or not. FWIW, I've seen that "unclassified for official use only" in other documents as well, cited on Wikipedia--I can't remember exactly where, just a week or two ago, in an article maybe on some criminal, or some weapon system. Anyway, thanks for joining the fray. I left DGG a note about this topic; it's really not in my area of expertise (or interest). Thanks WK, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Citing is one thing, but direct copying...I don't think so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Well, he's engaging on his talk page, so now is the time for talking, I think; I think this guy could be promising. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

School of Dennis

Hi Dennis; long time no speak, hope you're well. Just been reflecting on this particular mistake and what to do about it. I've thought a couple of times about how my lack of technical knowledge inhibits my work at SPI. I know you know what you're talking about when it comes to such things and I'd really like to learn - could you suggest any reading material? Thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, School of Dennis...almost seems like he'd get more students if we called it Brown University instead, just based on the name confusion :) Sædon^talk 19:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are interested in learning rather than being discouraged. To be honest, I don't know any books or sites off the top of my head. I've been working with networking for two decades now, and learned much of what I know by reading or blowing things up and having to fix them ;) I've worked with Linux since RH 4.1, and just troll around when I need info, which I know doesn't help you. Maybe a talk page stalker can offer a good book or website. I will ponder it as well, but I'm about to make the commute home. As for Brown University, ha! Trying to get me sued for false advertising. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, long commute home. How easy it will be to learn depends on your familiarity with networks and what kind of computers you have access to. Honestly, networking is easier to learn with Linux, as it is a core part of the kernel and you can get really down to the nuts and bolts. I don't use any GUI with linux networking, but I mainly use it for servers. One of the most basic tools is nmap. You can get the windows version, Zenmap here [2]. This is a port scanner. Keep in mind that port scanning might be illegal in some areas, as you are essentially pounding their box asking to make a connection on thousands of ports. Use at your own risk. Next, you need to read up on proxy servers. That is tricky, as there are many types and some are ok, and some aren't. Finally, get familiar with ranges. ie: 192.168.1.1/24 means every address from 192.168.1.0 to 192.168.1.255. That stuff. And be prepared to take a couple of years, learning as you go. There is still a lot about networking that is out of my expertise, and I just ask for help, or avoid those cases. Another place to just lurk and find people to help you or point you in the right direction is Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, lots of network savvy people there. It is hard to give you too much info, as I don't know what your level of network or computer expertise is, but something in those should at least provide you with a start, regardless of your level. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You boys have it easy with the Internet addressing scheme. I used to spend many happy days with a datascope trying to diagnose problems with HDLC connections. Now that's a proper man's job. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

HDLC? We used to dream of HDLC! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been learning about and using HDLC this past semester :) Though we are using Cisco HDLC, because all our lab stuff is cisco, and so is the curriculum. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Way above my pay grade. I network like I write prose: Kind of slow and sloppy, with a few errors, but I get the job done. One more thing you are smarter than I am at. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Basalisk. While I don't have any direct reading material I can recommend, nor that would cost less than $100 and still be worth it for you with use in regards to wikipedia, I do have some lessons from my classes that I might be able to scoop together for you. If not, we might even try a live chat so I can teach you a few things and you can ask questions, and i'll pull together some material from online to help with that. Let me know if your interested in either. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

RFA review?

I've done the questions, if you're still willing :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I will take a look in the next day or two, as I've got a tokkuri of sake and a few Kirin in me right now. Are you ready to do something soon? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not too soon. I had a bit of a quiet spell over the last few months (towards the end of last year I was editing with my WMF account a fair bit) but I recognise the potential opposition for lack of recent activity. I was thinking around August. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've started in there. I think the delay is wise to deal with the concerns, and prepare for the onslaught of questions. I've pulled back on noming and reviews due to working in other areas, but I had already agreed and your time frame makes it easy enough to assist without it interfering with my other activies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What a brilliant observation

couldn't have put it better myself - a shame it was only made in the relative privacy of a user's talk page] Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Kind of you to say, I appreciate it. I had been drinking sake, maybe I should do that more often ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Nice to see WP:WER get some press. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI Archiving

I don't think this worked properly. All of the content is gone, but there is no link to the archived case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. That happens about once every month or two. If you go up to the menu and use the PURGE function (which forces the servers to stop using the cached version and fetch a fresh copy), then it self corrects. Left alone, it would also fix itself over time. I have no idea why it does this, but like clockwork, it does every once in a while. Thanks for pointing that out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments left at RfA

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edson Rosa / Isa Roarte

Hi, Dennis. Some month ago you blocked user:Isa Roarte as a sockpuppet of user:Edson Rosa. It seems that a new sock, Mila Stam (talk · contribs) has appeared. S/he was reported (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa) and the investigation is going on but the disturbing thing is that already three copy-pasted articles are discovered, which is a serious copyrights infringement. Therefore I thought it would be appropriate also to notify you as an admin who did the blocking. Beagel (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a Golden Editor!

Good as gold!

Hi Dennis. I have come here to do the inevitable and announce that you are now a recipient of my Golden Editor Award, which I seek to present to Wikipedia's finest editors. For posterity's sake, I will explain why you fit in that category. You are one of our most helpful members. You often solve problems but almost never create them. You assist others in becoming better editors. You demonstrate the ideal demeanor for an administrator. You work in some of our most difficult areas and yet hold a position as one of the most highly–regarded project members. If you aren't one of our finest members, who is? Thank you for all you have contributed and congrats on the shiny medal! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a userbox for you, in case you'd like to display it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I always appreciate random acts of kindness, so thank you. I'm not sure that I've earned it, but it is a goal to be a better editor. I'm about two weeks from submitting my second GA, for American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s. It has been difficult, but doing the work gives me a deeper understanding and respect for our prolific editors who truly deserve such an award. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I Wikilinked to it from Automotive industry in the United States#Post-war years. Something that you put a lot of effort into deserves readers. You might prefer to change the {{See also}} that I added to {{main}}. Best regards.  LittleBen (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea, thank you. I still have lots of work to do on that article to get it to GA status, which itself was a spin-off from the original draft of 1950s American automobile culture. Malleus and I shared a GA on that one, I did the digging, he applied the lipstick. In a way, they are companion pieces. I'm already contemplating another auto related article that expands on muscle cars through the smog era, but first need to see how effectively that is already covered here. Our coverage of automobiles is hit and miss, with some of the articles desperately lacking sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

They often just refer to "Golden" as "senior" these days *snicker* (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite ready to be put out to pasture. Put out to stud might not be bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please accept. (Email Me) Alon12345 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC) You really should've waited for a response from Dennis before creating Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Dennis Brown. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC) I appreciate the thought, and I'm truly flattered, but I can't accept. Yesterday was my 1 year anniversary of becoming an admin, and I promised myself and others that I would not even consider any other bits until after that date. At this time, I actually like just being an admin and not ready to commit to more tools. While I'm open minded in the future, I actually don't have any plans or time tables for seeking Cratship, and don't have a need for the extra tools at this time. I've had several people tell me this is a step I should consider, and I promise I will genuinely consider it when the time is right and when I feel I'm ready to use the tools, but I'm not ready at this time. Thank you for the faith you put in me, and I hope I am able to continue to earn the trust of you and others in the community. As for Writ's concerns, I like boldness, so it did bring a smile to my face. Boldness is a good thing, even if we don't need that page for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC) To his credit, he didn't transclude it. Against his credit, NYB took it a bit more seriously and issued a warning about it; even more against his credit, he's apparently a sock of someone? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)  Looks like a duck to me --Rschen7754 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Sock of User:cmach7 it seems. Odd, the name is familiar but I don't remember crossing paths. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback notice

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added by Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Block

Can you block me for 3 weeks, I tried the wikibreak enforcer but for some reason it wont work --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I only do permanent blocks under special circumstances. I did modify your wikibreak enforcer, moving the code from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigPimpinBrah/vector.js to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigPimpinBrah/common.js, so we will see if that works. Using vector.js is only if you use the vector skin. Using common.js makes the script work no matter what skin you use. See you in three weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editor Retention

I see you halted any discussion of the Gaming of an article at the administrator's noticeboard. Good luck on your editor retention drive. It might be more successful if people at least tried to address issues like the one I brought up - years of consensus overturned by an editor who will not even articulate a reason for removing all the content that dozens of others spent years producing. Here's the community's article born of the labor of many:Original. And here is the destruction of that work by a long involved editor of that page:He called it, "dynamiting". Note too, that no effort has been made by him to articulate a reason for upending the community's work.
Now why would anyone stay if such baseless aggressiveness is so readily accepted by those whose primary responsibility is upholding shared community interests of civility, reason and discussion?12.144.158.30 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is an ongoing RFC. Admin do not decide content issues. It is not our jobs, and trust me, you don't want us deciding content. Editor retention isn't about pleasing everyone, that is a fools game. It is about helping create a level playing field where everyone has an equal voice and equal opportunity. What you call "dynamiting" is an accepted practice, and it is at an RFC to be decided, not by admin, but by fellow editors. If most of the editors disagree, then it won't get implemented. If most want it to start over, then it will. This is a decision for the community of editors, not admin. Admin. Do. Not. Decide. Content. Issues. I can't stress that enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a content issue. The article was written by dozens over a period of extraordinarily high public interest where every word was put through a wringer, and most everything was taken to every board imaginable for everything that classic edit warriors try, I recall once that even The Times of London was questioned extensively as to its status at the Reliable Source noticeboard. The article has been well vetted and *no reason* has been articulated for removing it all. That's an administrator issue of policy and process - not a content issue. And that, sir, is why people grow frustrated and leave, because Wikipedia is in the end a Game of angles for young males.12.144.158.30 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)} Sorry, I'm missing something here: If your lone-wolf "dynamiter" is removing content against longstanding consensus, and without a good reason, why aren't the rest of you simply invoking WP:CONSENSUS and putting it back? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The page has been stable for a very long time, perhaps a year. There are three previously involved editors who have commented, the one who "dynamited" the page (his words) without articulating a specific item of disputed content, myself and another. I and the other previously involved editor both opposed the removal of content and have attempted to restore the consensus article. Interestingly the two of us in opposition have never found ourselves allied before. I will take your advice and invoke WP:Consensus.12.144.158.30 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure — articulate your specific concerns with the content deletions — add something back (or something new) and talk about it — repeat as needed — that's how it's done! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So, it's incumbent on me to articulate specific concerns regarding the content deletion of an entire article, yet no such responsibility lies with the one who deletes all the content? Do you think that might be one of the reasons Ed's leave? Because rules are created on the spot without any hint of irony? 12.144.158.30 (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's incumbent on both of you. Ideally, if you start the ball rolling by spelling out why you feel the deletions were unjustified, he will, in turn, explain why he thinks the deletions were justified. If he doesn't, then he'll have no leg to stand on when you restore the content. You make progress here by discussing and compromising, not by taking your ball and going home. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor retention isn't about editor retention at all. What it's about is trying to entice new editors to hang around. Nobody cares about the replaceable units of work known as experienced editors. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's incumbent on the initiator to justify his edit. Especially a wholesale deletion of all content, something ordinarily reverted on sight as vandalism. I, and the other previously involved editor have however spelled out in detail why we feel the deletions were unacceptable. I myself have written extensively here, at the article's talk page and on the Administrator's notice board. Many days later, we have yet to see any basis for the deletion articulated. Not a word. 12.144.158.30 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So what you have here is "unexplained removal of content". Restore the content. He'll either remain silent, in which case your problem is solved, or he'll be forced to explain his actions, and then you can talk about it. Sometimes you just have to take an editor by the hand and lead him down the path to enlightenment. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Since we admin have zero authority on content (which is a policy I completely agree on), I am very careful to give a wide berth on content issues. Sometimes people blur the lines on what is a behavior problem and what is content. As long as an RFC is ongoing, admin shouldn't be coming in and telling the community what the page should say, and only get involved if there is blatant warring or personal attacks, etc. You already know that Doc, but to the IP, it important that fellow editors deal with content disputes without admin if there is any possible way it can be done. Admin aren't the bosses here, the community is, we are just the janitors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The other point I wanted to make — the people who "grow frustrated and leave", IMHO, were here for the wrong reason in the first place. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to stake out territories or battle each other's egos. Being an effective editor, I think, involves checking your ego at the door and doing whatever you have to do to solve problems and get the job done. Once I figured out that it wasn't about me, I became a much happier (and better) editor. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with much of your conclusion, but I have to disagree with your first sentence Dr. Joe. A new editor coming in can have the very best of intentions, try their best to follow what they see, and then share their own "knowledge" with the project. This can quickly be met with more WP:TLA links thrown at them than can be counted in a single day. (WP:NOT was the hardest one for me). Trying, adjusting, then trying again simply to be met with templates, reverts, and at times even rude treatment, can very quickly lead to frustration. So a person can come in with the very best of intentions, and for all the right reasons - but still experience a frustrated "your efforts aren't wanted here" mentality. Just IMO as well, but perhaps another perspective. — Ched :  ?  14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, most newbies (if not all) run into the template/revert/"that's not how we do it here" buzz saw fairly quickly, and yes, that can be very frustrating; it certainly was for me. But those who are asking the right question — what can I do for the project? — understand (or figure out fairly quickly) that in order to contribute effectively they have to adjust to WP, not vice versa. (My turning point was reading WP:NOJUSTICE.) Those who are asking the wrong question — what can WP do for me? — can't handle that, or their egos can't. I think most new editors THINK that they have the best of intentions; but after all, the road to hell is paved with those. :-) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible for us to always know what someone's intentions or motivations are. Often (ie: vandals) it is easy. For others, less so. We still try to help them, like I did above, explaining that admin are not the "bosses" around here. Most forums, the admins are, so it is a common misconception, but that isn't how we do things here. New users very often think that the admin here have editorial control or can act with impunity, and explaining to them that it is the editors that run the show, not the admin, is part of that process. Once a valuable new editor realizes that they are fully empowered and that their legitimate edits aren't subject to the whims of some anonymous editor, I would think that is empowering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Arggghhhh ... NO .. just no. I appreciate the concept, and do wish it were so .... sigh ... sorry ... Not my talk, not my place to disagree. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't get passive-aggressive on me, if you have something to say, spit out out, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I hope you truly know how much I do admire all your work here. Now, the first thing that strikes me in the above post is the imprecision in language. It is impossible for us to always know what someone's intentions or motivations are. Often (ie: vandals) it is easy.. While I do appreciate the actual accuracy, the two sentences are in contradiction to each other. If it is "impossible" in the first sentence, how can it be "easy" in the second? But my main gripe is this: Admins on Wikipedia ARE "bosses". It's not right. It's not fair. It's not the way it is supposed to be. But I'm sorry, it is fact. Can you honestly say that you've never seen an editor that had a few extra "bits" impose their own will on an article or discussion? Don't get me wrong, I have NEVER seen you do that, and I do my best to never do that as well; but it does happen on a daily basis. Even by "BEING" an admin brings a certain ... for lack of a better word, "authority" to a discussion. How often do we see an editor who doesn't have those couple extra buttons say "per admin A" in some conversation? I think you're vastly underestimating the division between "editors" with out the bits, and "editors" WITH the bits. When you throw on top of that particular hierarchy a level of "arbitration" .. I think it's even more apparent that there are "bosses", and "bosses of bosses". It is great to take the approach of not being forceful, and to try to be fair to all; but if you say admins. are NOT bosses, then I think you're turning a blind eye to the facts. I could go on a bit, but that's the general thoughts I had. — Ched :  ?  00:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps just a matter of semantics. Admin are NOT the bosses. Some act like that and get away with it, but the design of the system is such that they are not the bosses. The problem isn't my usage of the word, it is their application of the bit. I try to tailor my actions based on those facts, which probably pisses more than a few off regularly. (even if they won't raise the issue onwiki) But I won't capitulate and accept responsibility as a "boss" when in fact the community has clearly said that this is not what they want admin to be. The community is my "boss", I'm just their handyman. As for the rest of the imprecision, it's been a long day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps some is semantics. Most is probably systemic failure in some degree or another, Not that I am capable of offering an alternative, sorry. Dealings with perceptions is always subjective. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a strange thing Ched, and I'm speaking only for myself here, but I take no account of whether another editor is an admin or not. If I think they're a cunt I tell them I think they're a cunt. What could be simpler? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't take account either. However, given my subject interest, I do frequently find myself calling on admins to do what they alone can do. I'm frequently amazed to discover that I am in the presence of admins who will not use what they have, and they are most commonly people who were granted the privileges five or more years ago. This may seem bizarre to some but I also find that those admins who appear to have a connection to India are actually rather good when firmness is desirable (and compliant), whereas those from, say, the west coast of the US or New York etc are often far too culturally sensitive to see the wood for the trees. That is a massive generalisation, of course, but I think that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. I could name some names but will desist for obvious reasons. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had no experience of Indian admins, but I've had far too much of American admins, present company excepted of course. Anyone who believes that imposing a one-second block just because they can is well beyond my comprehension. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There are some topics that I won't touch, nor will many other American admin. Israel/Palestine issues, Indian caste, The Troubles, etc. It isn't an unwillingness, or indifference, it is ignorance. It's not that I'm completely unfamiliar, but those are such explosive topics, that if you aren't very familiar, it is easy to do a lot of damage with the admin tools, lose editors or just cause drama. Admin have to be very careful when getting involved in these areas, and more importantly, willing to say when they have made a mistake or have simply gotten over their head. From an admin's perspective, the system punishes someone who accidentally gets in over their head, so it encourages admin to just dig in. Even good admin can get caught up. And even when not using the tools, many (new) editors make the mistake of thinking an admin's opinion counts more than a non-admins, or that we know more about editing than a non-admin, and that just isn't true. This is why admin are better off avoiding topic areas they aren't very confident in. Also, we Americans are culturally isolated in an odd way. We live in a huge country where most people don't speak a second language because 95% of the people wouldn't have a use for it, and most of our experience with other countries is via the internet. If I walk out my door and drive due west for 4000km, I will still be in the USA. It doesn't justify our ignorance or cultural oversensitivity, but it might explain it some. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for mot responding ... a lot on my mind at the moment. — Ched :  ?  10:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  No problem, I was just monologuing anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I just re-read this thread, and your remark, Dennis, that "admins are not the bosses, we're just the janitors" reminded me of a short-lived TV show called Steambath — anybody remember it? — it was a surreal dark comedy featuring some recently dead folk finding themselves in Limbo, which was a steamroom with an unlit exit. Morty, the Puerto Rican steamroom attendant, was actually God! So yes, in that sense admins are janitors, albeit janitors with nuclear weapons. :-) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Janitors with nuclear weapons" does frame it rather succinctly. It is important that admin remember both elements to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Dennis, would you or a stalker be able to revdel a defamatory diff please? [3] Appreciated. Keri (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Acroterion! Keri (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision deleted, IP blocked, article protected, thanks for spotting that. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good call, and great reaction time. Thanks to both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, so this is a pretty random question, but something I have never quite understood. What is the difference between Revdel and Oversight from both a technical standpoint and a "when they should be used" perspective? I am confused because Oversight requires a special permission, whereas Revdel is something any admin can do. Thanks. Go Phightins! 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oversight is very similar, just to the next level. I can see any edit that any admin RevDels. It is used for bad edits that are really disruptive or run of the mill BLP violations. Oversighters use similar tools, but admin can't see the previous edits, only other oversighters can. This is done for serious outing, edits that can cause harm to someone, or legal problems. The threshold is higher, but think of them as degrees of the same thing.
  • Revert (anyone) --> RevDel (admin) --> Oversight (OSers). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • OK. Thanks; I had never quite been able to figure out what the difference was, thanks for clearing that up. Go Phightins! 23:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Reverts - peons
      • RevDels - demi gods
      • Oversight - Olympians. NE Ent 18:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just....wow... That actually made me laugh out loud, I give you that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget: Selective deletions - Titans. Rivertorch (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

BF101

Hi. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101? BF101 has returned again, this time using the Mobile, Alabama IP addresses. Also, per McDoobU93, I think an abuse report should be filed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Before..

Prodding a page, review the history to check for vandalism and revert the vandalism rather than attempt to delete material. I expect that's what admins are supposed to do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• If I've made a mistake, it might be helpful to actually link to that article. Admin are human, we are no less prone to err from time to time. I'm no exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"a Wikipedia sentence sucking on a lemon"?

".. almost $250 million, a staggering amount at the time.." - would a value convert template be worthwhile there? Or maybe too clumsy sour? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, I just left a note on Sitush's page about that same quote. I ran across it by accident and it was simply too good to pass up. It filled the void in the section nicely. As for a convert template, I thought about it and not opposed to it. I think I was just too lazy to go find the right template for it. How much is that in current saw bucks? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No strong view. But, as a lazy limey, am only used to a few quid over here! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the help, by the way. I think it will be ready to submit for a GA within the week. It has been a long road. Was forked in October, but much of the content was earlier than that. I didn't move into main space until a week ago today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It's always looked good to me. And it's great to see you putting such effort in here (- not that your significant efforts in "oiling the wheels" ever go unnoticed, by me at least). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I added the conversion template after figuring it out, sorta. And thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me. One last question (for now) - did you consider linking all the manufacturers also in the table? (that was the first place I went). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Not sure how they view that at GA. I figured I would wait. I think Malleus is likely to GA review it, and if it should be done, he certainly won't hesitate to tell me. (I'm trying to earn one of these [4]) I'm thinking it might be considered overlinking. Just as double linking in images depends on the reviewer. I'm certainly no GA expert. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Haha, I'm sorry to hear that you'll now have to avoid him like the plague. I know how that feels. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Nah, I won't avoid him. He and I get along famously, but I know he won't grant any special favors in GA. If anything, he will be tougher. He has more self respect than that. My goal is to make it the best article that I am capable of, he knows that. I don't plan to stop working on GA articles after this, and I need at least 5 before I could consider reviewing a GA for someone else (another goal), but that that might be a year or two down the line. This is only my second attempt, so it is one step at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

US-centric

Shouldn't your auto articles really be titled US rather than American? There would be no problem using "American" after the first sentence but I am fairly sure that WP:MOS says somewhere that "America"/"American" should be qualified since, of course, America is a much bigger place than just the US. I have the feeling that it might be one of the exceptions to the "adopt common usage" paradigm. One of your stalkers will probably correct me! - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure how MOS falls on this. I can't help but be at least somewhat US-centric in my thinking (our culture rather demands it), so it sounds odd to call it US instead of American in this context to my ears. Lets see what the stalkers say, or if need be, I have a couple of people I call for MOS issues. I did ping User:DGG on this, he is my go-to for MOS issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Special:PrefixIndex/American is worth a look as well. I did see in American ethnicity: Declaring "American" ancestry is most common among Southerners. so maybe my red neck is showing ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the vastness of that search (and my lazyness) I only checked the first three pages, but much of those are proper nouns, and American is the proper usage. I would be interested to hear what DGG has to say, perhaps 1950s Automobile culture in the United States? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You're thinking of the old article :) This new one would be US automotive manufacturing in the 1950s (from American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s). Both articles would seemingly be affected. I still like "American", but I'm a 'merican. I'm already working on a 1960s article for manufacturing, and expect to submit the 50s manufacturing article for GA soon. Part of the problem is that "United Statesian" isn't a pretty phrase, so American tends to be preferred by the ear and eye. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Given the context of the article, I see nothing wrong with using "American" in this way. Intothatdarkness 13:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Dennis, you've never heard of "Usonian"? :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
        • To be clear on one point: I'm not stuck on the article title as a whole. I think it fits, but that doesn't mean it is the most eloquent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes I know the one you are doing now (although the same would apply to the first one), I just couldn't come up with a decent way to say culture automobile manufacturing of this in this decade...how about 'merican cars when Happy Days takes place? Also I think it should be automobile, not automotive.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Some less tongue-in-cheek suggestions:
            • United States automobile manufacturing in the 1950s (similar to what you have above)
            • United States automobile industry in the 1950s
            • Automobile manufacturing in the United States in the 1950s
          • By titling it manufacturing it suggests it is about actually building the cars, is it about that or more about the industry (see suggestion 2, which I like best). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
            • • I've been debating the exact same change, automotive/automobile. I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, which is why I've solicited for opinions. I just titled it what sounds most natural to me. Of course, that isn't the criteria, which is why I like getting the feedback. Of your ideas, I lean towards United States automobile industry in the 1950s, since it does cover what they did, why they did it and what helped and got in the way. I've already bought a couple of books and started sourcing an article to cover the 1960s. Not sure every decade needs one, but I'm confident I could cover the 30s-70s fairly well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• I do not know why I should be an expert on this. My personal view is that WP uses the common names of things that can be understood by English speakers internationally. There are some contexts where we must use United States: formal lists of countries, formal comparisons of different countries, anything dealing with the formal government of the United States or of its subdivisions, anything that puts the US in contrast with other nations of the Americas. Otherwise, "American" is the best word. Nobody will confuse it here. The problem is that rhetorically there is no acceptable adjective (Usonian is not standard English, but in contemporary usage more of a joke.) Similarly, we talk about the British automobile industry, not the automobile industry of Great Britain, which is too formal for ordinary use, even in an encyclopedia.

Asfor automotive, I consider that old fashioned and used only in special terms. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• • You are one of the most experienced editors on MOS type issues, on and off wiki, so I always appreciate your ability to break issues down to their basic elements, simplifying issues. Even in the rare instances I disagree with you, I always learn something in the exchange, which is why I seek your input on these issues. In this case, I agree with you on both points as I tend to get a bit too formal in titles and tend to worry about the title after the article is built, which is now. Thanks again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    I agree with DGG, and I'd definitely rename the article American automobile manufacturing in the 1950s. Neither do I see anything wrong with using the word "American" in this context; nobody is going to be misled into believing the scope is automobile manufacturing across the whole of North and South America. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    • • I had renamed to American automobile industry in the 1950s before I saw your post. Sitush raised a good point that it was about the industry as a whole, not so much about the manufacturing processes (which could arguably be another article, the technology of manufacturing itself), so this is my preference. We can start a discussion on the talk page of the article and find a consensus there if someone prefers, I'm not one to labor the title as long as it is representative of the content, a rose by any other name and all that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

        Your new title looks fine to me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have formally filed it for GA review after doing a final sweep. I'm sure there are still a number of flaws that I've missed, but I think it is sufficiently complete, clear and sourced to be considered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion close

Ok, so my RFC got caught in the backlog of DOOOOM, and it got archived from The administrator's noticeboard before it was closed. The discussion can be found here. Could you either close it or point me in the direction of someone who has the time? Fair warning, it is long, contentious, and probably not clear-cut. Thanks in advance! Tazerdadog (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm not smart enough to close this. I think to properly close a discussion like this, you need someone with a more technical background, who can understand some of the nuance that would escape me. It shouldn't require an admin to close, just someone familiar enough with the topic. Dropping a neutral request at WP:AN might bring someone there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, I will post it up there again and hope someone closes it this time.Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis! I'm baaaaaaack

Hey Hi Howdy! Wondering if you could take a look at the following: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webber Academy. I don't know how it got there unformatted, and it just plain shouldn't be there. Wondering what is going on with the editor who nominated it after only 7 edits, too, but that is not all that important. I will work on the article a bit to get it up to the point where it is a decent stub. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I did find this book [5] but not much else. And good to see you back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonaxgold

I'm sure my note is wrong, wrong template, etc--but it's the best I can do right now. Thanks! (You should see my deletion log for tonight...) Drmies (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I just woke up, not coffeed up yet, but will fix it later. You know we DO have a Twinkle button for that, under ARV option. It is what I just used, then copied your stuff over. Closed. Easy peasy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• We all need a break every now and then, myself included. Go work on school, that is more important anyway, and I look forward to you coming back refreshed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please change the header before people freak out! --Rschen7754 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • hehe, when I saw it in our new Facebook style notification system (which I like at first glance, btw) I was thinking "oh hell, time to rally the WER troops". Glad to see it wasn't quite as dramatic as the header might lead one to believe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The new system is in Facebook style? It could be Gangnam style and still I would not have known, never having got to grips with FB and nowadays having no desire to do so. I fixed a networking problem for a customer at the weekend. She was pleased - "Great, I can see the web again. Back to civilisation with Facebook." Now, if she had said "Back to civilisation and Facebook" then it would have made sense to me, but her choice of words seems oxymoronic. I'm a cynical bastard sometimes! - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

        I've never seen the point of FB: "Today I'm having scrambled eggs for breakfast, tomorrow I may try them poached". Malleus Fatuorum 06:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds more like Twitter, MF. Although, I haven't logged into my Facebook in ages (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I created a Twitter account then immediately asked "why?" I didn't have a good answer so I haven't gone back. Nothing I do is that interesting, but the family does like to share pictures of our dogs and other silliness, and they prefer Facebook. If not for them, I wouldn't be there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • • QFT. That comment really needs a 'Like' button. Keri (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

        • • • Like But on a more serious note, I check it every day or two. I several brothers and sisters who live 1000 miles away, plus my dad is in his 80s and he uploads pictures of his garden and the latest fish he caught at the lake, I do the same with pictures of barbecue and my dogs. I keep up with a few old school mates from the 70s as well. Like other people's children, it is fine in small doses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

testing your new notification system ... this is only a test .. if it had been an actual emergency .. I would have YELLED.

LOL - ok ... that really did give me a chuckle. :-) (argh ... am I really getting that bad?) — Ched :  ?  15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Us old farts have to stick together. And if you have the weather channel on in the background, and don't care that you are only wearing underwear when you get the paper, or still actually get the paper, then yes, you are old. And yes, that new change does strip down the responsibilities of Crats around here considerably. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks by the way for pointing out the script .. saw it mentioned at AN too ... but don't remember now which I saw first, but thank you buddy. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures for Fish Wiki

Im doing a fish-WIki project to elaborate on a Minnesota species of fish that doesn't have much written about it . i want to add a picture describing the distribution of the fish and was planning on putting the reference of the website in the reference section, but have no clue how to get the picture from the DNR website onto the wiki page. Is it even worth me trying or should i just elaborate on the subject with words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.236.49.59 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Likely, the picture is copyrighted and can't be used, but if you will provide a link to that image, and the name of the fish, I will not only see if I can find an image that is properly licensed, but will show you how to do the same thing. It isn't too difficult once you know how. (ie: not just give you a fish, but show you how to fish...yes, pun intended.) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings

Hello Dennis: Can I please ask you to look at recent history of the above article. An unregistered editor has made five reverts in the last 24 hours and is ignoring the consensus built-up in the article. Further he has made unhelpful comments about French and other forces. I have tried to be civil (see his Talk page), as have other editors, but we seem to be ignored in favour of his PoV. I would be grateful for your advice/action. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I just added a comment below yours at AN3. Lets see how they handle it. I try to not jump in since it is an a board, unless there is an overwhelming need. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Many thanks, Dennis. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Muscle cars

I'd love to get a few car articles up to spec, to stand as an example for others to follow if you will. My first thought, given your interest in American V8s and mine in British cars, was that the Sunbeam Tiger might be a good mix. But having looked at that article a little more closely I'm pretty sure that the text has been copied from somewhere, so we'd likely have to write the whole damn thing from scratch. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was thinking the something similar. They show sources, but something isn't right. After reading up on the car a bit (I wasn't very familiar prior), it actually makes sense since the car is influenced from both sides of the pond. Research material is a bit harder to find, but I don't think it would be too difficult to tackle with both of us working on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I went ahead and ordered a book on Amazon, something that I think will work fine in the bibliography. It should be here Saturday. That alone should be adequate to cite the technical information and much more. I don't have ready access to newspaper articles before 2000, although I can probably access some with my highbeam account. I went in and properly formatted the current citations, to give us a structure to work from. That article has been around for almost 10 years. It doesn't look bad, but it certainly could be much better, and will be shortly. Will go ahead and move this to the talk page there now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  That's great. I've got access to archived newspaper articles so I'll see what I can find there. Once we've got your other article done and dusted of course. Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  It is next on the list for sure, just gathering a list of sources and books. For me, immersion is the best way to tackle an unfamiliar topic like this. Once I gather the sources, I will do little but read for a couple of days, note the inconsistencies, etc. That is the method I use at work: gather, immerse, outline, expand, polish. I have no idea if it is "proper" or not, I lack the academic experience, it is just what I've developed over the years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[Stalker butting in.] The articles on the V8-powered Bristols might also benefit from Anglo-American collaboration? Writegeist (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've got a GA pending, then this Sunbeam article and a follow up to the GA (same topic, different decade) but what did you have in mind? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Unrelated, but hey Drmies...Can you hear me now? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Loud and clear. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Always pouring oil on troubled waters - your comments here just underline what a level-headed and sensible chap you are. Thanks for helping defuse what could have been an ongoing problem in a polite, caring and considerate way. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank Yunshui. He seems like a good kid, just tripping over his own feet a bit, like they all can do sometimes. I thought Nick put it well and just wanted to reinforce his good advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

I just had a thought (unusual for this early in the morning). At EotW, we like to keep the whole nomination process secret until the award is actually distributed. No problem so far...except now... with the advent of this whole new "Notification" business. The nominee will "see" mention of his name and come and look what Its about. Any advice on how to assure that the nominee doesnt find out before the Award is distributed? Can the EotW Project opt out of the Notification Process? Maybe its not even a problem but I dont know.```Buster Seven Talk 14:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, I have no idea. I would think not. User:Okeyes (WMF) would be the one to ask. If you don't link their name via [[User:UserName]], then it shouldn't show up. I think it won't show up in notifications if you switch to {{u|UserName}}, based on User:Drmies's experience, but I'm not positive. There is no way to think of all these interesting unintentional side effects until you put the program into place, although I bet they have thought of many of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Buster7, did you get a notification for this mention? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Crap. Buster, you are probably right. Tell you what, why don't you submit a fake nom of me, and I will see if I get a notification, or I can do it of you. This is a concern I wouldn't have thought of...good thought Buster. Go Phightins! 03:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

...and thanks to AutomaticStrikeout, who first raised this issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week. isaacl (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have un-linked all the editors in the "Q". I hope it wasn't to late. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that the notification is created the moment you save a linked name, and unlinking doesn't "un"notify them, which would require yet another process, but that is just my guess. It is hard to do anything "privately" around here, and trying to do the process offwiki, email, isn't likely to be viable single other people need to participate as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu

Hi Dennis, you commented that this page Ping Fu would be Pending-change protected for a period of 2 months. But I did not see the page protected this way, so I left a message on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Now Tbhotch remarks that this decision was meant for another page. Can you clarify? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Someone else fixed that, I put it in the wrong section. Sections move around there a lot, so I've done that a time or two before. I'm dealing with that issue at ANI, so letting another admin decide on protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis for taking care of. It is clear now what happended. I was a bit confused with the messages. Regards, SchreyP ^(messages) 08:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No topic

To be clear I wasn't saying you are part of a facist organization, I was just pointing out appeals (at least mine) work in an un-democratic manner. And Anti-democratic thought includes fascism. What I noticed is that many of the people who Opposed my appeal were not really reading it. Most of them seemed to be reading what the big Admins were saying and just copy that. This is hardly a fair trial. One of my Universal Human Rights was violated. It's like going to jail not because you were guilty of murder, but because the court didn't like you.

All that being said, I have gone over 3/4 of a month without violating the ban (albeit one accident that was forgiven) and still plan to appeal it again after a month has passed. I am still hoping you will support my appeal at that time. Again, Wikipedia does not have a fair trial, people are just going to say what the Admins say. You have a lot of respect among the community and I'm sure your Support can make a huge difference. Now that I have a better understanding on how the system works, I'm going to be less hostile to hostile users and take other advice you've given. And sicne you were right about my last appeal being a bad idea, if you think appealing it again after a month is also a bad idea, I will take your advice this time. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• You are right about a couple of things, it wasn't a fair trial but then again, there is no justice here and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Very often, editors will just add "me too!" comments or !votes that are not really on topic. Any closer is expected to ignore those, and usually do. There were also some comments with merits there as well, including mine. While admin try to be fair, at the end of the day, the overall goals at WP:Five pillars and policy are expected to dominate the decision making, along with consensus. I would strongly recommend waiting to seek removal of the restrictions. It is expected that you will first demonstrate they are no longer needed before they will be removed, and this takes time. Keep in mind, if they are lifted and you violate the spirit that caused them in the first place, you will simply be blocked, so I would caution against moving too fast. As for how I would !vote, I would wait until that time and look at the recent history. Honestly, I've been in the middle of a WP:GA until last night, and now working on another, so I haven't really looked. I can't promise how I would vote, or even that I will vote, but I will promise to try my hardest to be objective and fair about it at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only way I can demonstrate they are no longer is by not editing Armenian and BLP articles, which I have not been editing. So why is one month not long enough, even though you previously said it was? How long do you have in mind? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been a month yet. My reasoning for suggesting waiting is mainly "a gut feeling", I really can't articulate why. There are two considerations at play here: "When is getting the topic ban lifted a fair act" as well as "When is getting a topic ban lifted a realistic possibility". If you focus on the former, you will likely never be unbanned. If you focus on the latter, then your odds are better. Again, it isn't about justice (remember, we have no justice here) it is about getting the desired result you want. Going in before the community thinks you are ready, like you did last time, looks bad and makes people not want to lift the ban. Whether or not you like this is irrelevant, it is simply human nature, which is beyond my control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying if things go as fine as they have so far in another week. Then will you be in support of lifting my ban? I think getting it lifted after a month is a realistic possibility and so did you. You are part of the community too and everyone on the AN board seems to value your opinion. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gone through and looked at your contribs, so I'm not in a position to commit. When and if the time comes, I will then. I'm not automatically opposed, I just lack enough information to commit. I've actually been quite swamped over the last few weeks, starting a new article and taking it to GA, and now I've jumped on another editing project. I've been trying to spend more time editing and less admin'ing, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LarryTr7

Since you're the admin stating you are willing to block them, is [6] that enough for an immediate indef? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer another admin or experienced editor come in and offer an opinion, particularly since NE Ent has expressed reservations about the block. I disagree with him, but his opinion has the same worth as my own here, so it would be a bit brazen to block the editor without a broader consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• It may be possible that Ent has changed course on this, especially as they were the one to redact the BLP violation. But I understand your position :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't stop me from acting on any future actions or problems, but if Ent truly changed his mind and decided that a block was the better course of action, he would follow up. Also, this is more a long term problem, so it doesn't require haste in deciding. I don't always require discussion to act, but this is one of those types of cases that is best left to discussion first, at least at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Can you do me a favour please Dennis (assuming you are still a clerk) and look at that. I am afraid I messed up and that the sock is Nangparbat, if it is he is currently editing articles and voting in AFDs which I would like to revert if it is Nang. But I am not 100% certain as I usually am with Nang so if possible I would like this checked ASAP. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I still clerk there some, likely the longest lived "trainee" in SPI history. Moved it over and merged, no problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Den, for a trainee you are pretty damn good Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

the Tiger

re: "but already developing an affinity for the little beasty." .. it does look like it would be a blast to drive one of those. :) (and ty for the userspace link) — Ched :  ?  20:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. I was just thinking how they remind me of the collaborations of Malleus and I: The loud American engine pushing things forward and the British chassis that makes sense of it all and makes it move forward in a straight line. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  The MGB V8 was similar, but it used a British V8. Well actually it was a derivation of one of GM's V8s to be fair, but it was a fantastic engine nevertheless. I helped my brother to convert his TR7 to TR8 spec, maybe 20 years or so ago now. I'll never forget lying underneath that car struggling to heave the new five-speed gearbox into place. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  It is so funny that now I have a little 2.0 litre turbo-charged I4 engine in my Sonata, and it smoothly produces 274 hp at the wheels. Still, it doesn't have that visceral connection to the road like the old roadsters. My 450SL and Karman Ghia had that, but all the toys are sold. Now you have me wanting a new toy.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  V8s are great, but the best sounding car I ever heard was the Triumph GT6, which had a lovely burbling straight-six engine. I've still got a couple of my toys, the MGB and the Jag, but one of them will soon have to go. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  I have to admit a weakness for two-door Chevrolet Impalas and Chevy trucks from the late 60s. I've owned a pair of Monte Carlos and a pair of El Caminos from the mid 70s as well, and a 69 Firebird. And I think 8 or 9 trucks including my current '05 2500HD. Extended cab, of course. I like big vehicles, typical yank I guess. The wife is the one who loves the roadsters. Her last toy was a fully optioned 2006 Eclipse SE, which resulted in a string of speeding tickets. It was quick enough that punching it was a bit scary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  I always found that company cars go much faster than anything you could buy yourself, which resulted in me getting a string of speeding tickets as well when I had one. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW

Confirmed is confirmed, but by "incontrovertibly confirmed", I was giving emphasis to its indisputability, i.e. partly that it was totally indisputable, but mostly because it would have been impossible for a different conclusion to be drawn. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I took it to mean exactly that. I've never seen you use that before, and know you well enough to know that you wouldn't use that term unless you were willing to bet a week's lunch money on it. You aren't one to use hyperbole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

AUSC elections

The elections are over and the results were posted. --Rschen7754 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oh hell, not the first dumb thing I've done today. I really should just avoid this place when I'm taking heavy doses of cough medicine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey Dennis, could you do a quick peer review on the WKEY (AM) article? I say quick cause the article is kinda small. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm no Malleus (I think I'm taller, younger and more handsome) but I will try:

• "Country" and "oldies" shouldn't be capitalized in the lede and elsewhere unless it starts a sentence.
• "WKEY took to the airwaves" would be better said as "WKEY began broadcasting".
• "WKEY would increase its power in 1987 to 1,000 watts day and night.[8]" is confusing since they were already at 1000 watts during the day. You might just say they increased their nighttime broadcast power to match their day, 1000 watts.
• "away from Covington proper" lose the "proper" (I make the same mistake sometimes)

Prose seems a bit padded and could be condensed a great deal. Are you going for DYK or something? I was looking for something to add to the article, and I checked google books and google news and found exactly zero. Going to be a tough one to expand. They don't even seem to have any local press that is searchable online. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to go for GA, I doubt I could take this past that. It took me awhile to find references after expanding, so I missed out on taking it to DYK. Covington, VA doesn't have but a local daily newspaper that has a barebones website. I will, however, look for some more local information from them and Google News. I will make the recommended changes first though. Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a GA expert, having just recently earned my first two, but from a quick look, I just don't see enough available material on the station. I'm talking a complete void of available material. But I'm glad you've added what you have, I think we should have every licensed radio station with an article, even if it is very short. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much what's available is what is on the page. What is there took awhile to find too. The last piece came together just a couple hours ago. I don't think it will survive GA, but it is worth a shot. We do have articles for most of the radio stations out there. User:Mlaffs and User:Dravecky deserve a HUGE amount of credit for all the work they have done to create those articles and keep them updated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage anyone from seeking a GA, but there is already a backlog there and submitting one that you know won't pass probably isn't useful. I suggest just making it the best you can, and focus your time on GAs instead on a subject that has enough material to become more than a very short article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What I have on the page is all I can find. I did extensive searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo for information (sometimes you get different links on different search engines) and came up with nothing new. Alot of that came from different Broadcasting Yearbooks that come out every year. They have a TON of information in them, so it was helpful in getting the bulk of the information for the page. The yearbooks were created with information culled from the stations themselves and the FCC (so they are good sources of old information). Beyond that, though, I came up empty.

Why I think it is GA quality is that, while it is a small article, it is heavily sourced with good, reliable sources on pretty much every sentence. While I don't think it will survive a GA, I hope that it will. I tend to be a "glass half-empty" kinda person. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Start of an edit war

Hey! I would greatly appreciate it if you or another admin could take a look at this page (check history of the redirect if it redirects you), as well as the consensus reached here, and knock appropriate heads together (or tell me to drop the stick). I don't want this to turn into blockings required ugly, but I'm afraid it might if left alone. I'm also trying to hold to a 1RR on that page. Thanks! Tazerdadog (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• That is a textbook supervote, as IRWolfie points out. I've recommended the close be set aside and it be reclosed by someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Note that User:Tazerdadog is the only user who reverted at Tau (2π) twice today: here 1 and here 2. Tkuvho (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• One creation, and one reversion. I'm done editing there for at least 30 hours or so. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• A supervote (I corrected myself above) is when a closer doesn't just look blindly at the discussion and close the discussion with a summation of the discussion, they instead combine those arguments into their own argument and use that as a closing statement. In other words, they have an opinion in the outcome and inject that into the closing. They aren't being objective. This is why people aren't supposed to close discussion on topic where they have strong feelings, they can't be objective. A close should weigh both sides without injecting their own opinions. This isn't always easy to do, and some fail in spite of their best efforts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• As far as who has reverted or edited, I haven't looked. I limited my observations to the close itself, was it within expectations for an RfC close. In this case, no, it was not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cross-project spammer and sockpuppeteer

User:Linkproz is a blocked role account for a company of "reputation management" and SEO spammers. They have an account in Commons, and possibly elsewhere as well. You've helped with the puppetry: have you got contacts who can stop them elsewhere? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:INeverCry is my go to man for Commons. I don't have connections elsewhere, maybe he does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the acct indef on Commons. INeverCry 02:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice sought

Hi Dennis. I was worried about WP:NOTCATALOG at Paul Motian and I left a note at the editor's Talk Page. I see that similar concerns may have been raised back in 2011 (see Talk:Paul Motian). I've since taken advice from User:Boing! said Zebedee and he thinks that only the bare ref formatting is an issue. I wondered if you had a view? Many thanks for your time. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I hate to push you to someone else, but when it comes to policy on musicians and albums, I've traditionally asked User:TenPoundHammer, the author of Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. I'll give him a try! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ... just testing! Thanks for checking. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass changes of colours of weatherboxes

Recently, the weatherboxes that I have edited have been mass reverted to standard colours by another editor(blue for precipitation). Although other users use non-standard colours in addiing/editing the weatherboxes and follow similar conventions listed in the discussion for the weather box (under the section "Basic standards for colours and wording") , this editor has only changed the colours to the weatherboxes that I have edited and left a response on my talk page saying that I am mass adding non-standard colours, even though he/she could have done the same thing to another user. I have previously told the editor that using blue colours is not approrpiate in these areas because they cause the colours to blend (harder to read) and misrepresent the climate by making it much colder than it should be. My question is that is this action that the editor did is appropriate? Reason is that I feel singled out and I need outside opinion. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I can only guess that you were singled out because it was easy to look at your contribs and find a bunch of them without effort, then convert them. I've done this before, where one is "wrong", so you go and fix them all. I doubt you are being picked on, even though I understand why it might look that way. It was just convenient to "fix" a bunch at once by patrolling your edits, I assume.

I'm not inclined to jump into the discussion there, but I have had to work with MOS issues with templates and I will just say that I strongly favor all articles using the exact same color scheme. I don't care which, as long as they all match. I use Wikipedia a lot to surf city climate data, and it bothers me greatly to see completely different methods and colors used on the different cities. It looks unprofessional. So I will leave the color scheme to others to decide, but I still wish we would pick one and then go change all the articles to match that. Rather than worry about the individual ones, I suggest getting a dialog started to standardize them for all articles. Blue, green, paisley, whatever, but all the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

When you mean methods, does this mean the data presented? Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Some use different colors, some use different table styles as well, very different. Frustrating that we don't use the same type type format and colors on all articles. For example, compare the climate data for Houston#Climate and Atlanta,_Georgia#Climate (collapsed) and Sacramento,_California#Climate, which is really different. I've seen a few that only use that upper table for them, even though it has both kinds of tables. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. The standard is usually sunshine hours (monthly amounts), not the percent of possible sunshine. Ironically, before the edits were reverted, most weatherboxes in Canada (that is an example) used the same colour scheme (green) and the data was almost similar (although some did not have sun hours as it was not available). Would it be more realistic to use the same colours of the weatherboxes in one country instead of all places around the globe? Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment The Atlanta weatherbox is the standard one, based on the appearance of many other weatherboxes in USA. The Sacramento, California one is actually inaccurate because the values for possible amounts of sunshine are derived from monthly sunshine hours (I prefer eliminating the % values). Since the sunshine hours is from the 1961-90 period but the % values are up to 2009, the weatherbox is misleading. The Houston weatherbox was controversially changed to % sunshine. Before, it was monthly amounts. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As for different countries, that is something for the community to decide, not me, but I tend to think that no, we use the same for every country maybe using metric instead of imperial as the primary units (although I would argue we should use only the metric). I can't think of a reason why Japan should be treated differently than Cuba for climate data, for example. I'm not an WP:MOS expert, but I'm thinking we generally treat all like things the same unless there is an overriding reason why we need to ignore all rules and treat it differently. Uniformity is the goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Metric is used in almost every country except for USA. I know that the weatherboxes differ from country to country partly because of what the community decides but also the availability of the data. For example, while weatherboxes in USA include record highs, lows and snowfall, other countries might only include just average highs and lows and precipitation. Thus, it is better to treat it differently on the basis of the availability of data and standardize weatherboxes in one country. For example, the weatherboxes I added in Mexico always includes highs, lows, mean, record highs and lows, precip, precip days (snowy days for colder places) and humidity and sun (if available) and use the same colour scheme (before reverted to standard colours). For the Japan and Cuba example, Japan has a much larger variety of data from its national meteorological agency while Cuba has a much limited amount of data and so the weatherboxes will have to be different because you cannot just make up numbers. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that some cities will have more info than others, my concern is just the superficial format, the look and feel. You can't publish "hours of sunshine" if you don't have the data, but if you do have it, all should be the same color. Same with other facts. WP:MOS isn't concerned with content as much as display and format, so every similar page has a similar look and feel. This makes using the encyclopedia easier, to be honest, because you get used to seeing information formatted one way for similar data. Not exact, mind you, but similar enough that it flows. I think working with others to unify all this first would be helpful. If you want to see something completely out of MOS, take a look at all the color coordinated templates for sports teams, drives me mad enough that I stay away from them. To me, the templates should all be the same color, and use the article itself to describe the official colors, etc. Often, this colorization violates WP:accessibility as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am currently discussing this on the [[Template talk:Weather box#RfC - Colours to be used in the weather box]|discussion for the colours to be used]]. Thanks for your opinion on it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Howdy Dennis

I was wondering if you could help me in creating new sandboxes or spaces to work on articles? I'm working on several new articles currently that are at different stages of completeness, and at the moment I have to mainly use MSword and keep my sandbox for the most complete. Maybe something like what you've done with the Sunbeam Tiger article, so I can collaborate on stuff (esp. new BLPs) until they are up to standard. Thanks. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have several articles working at the same time, so I create a subdirectory and place them under that. On the subdirectory page, I just list them. So you could create User:Hillbillyholiday81/Articles by typing anything in there and saving. Then create articles under that by listing them first, like:

User:Hillbillyholiday81/Articles/Ancient Egyption Algebra,

User:Hillbillyholiday81/Articles/List of Futurama pop culture references

(or something less silly) and go edit them, which creates them. Then use the main page, /Articles to just list them and make notes, like I do at User:Dennis Brown/Articles I use that page as a work sheet, for the subarticles, "to do list", listing stuff I've already done, etc. It works for me, and you just type the link, make an edit and the page exists. If you move it to main space, it keeps the whole history intact and creates a redirect from the old name to the new article. As long as we are taking new articles, it is that easy. Oh, and I have a link to my Articles sub section on my user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha, nice one Denzil my sahn. You're a diamond geezer, mate, diamond.. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Being a yank, I'm not familiar with him, now I need to go find an episode to watch, to make sure I"m not being insulted. ;) Glad to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a British institution, pretty damn funny (David Jason aka Del Boy is a "Living National Monument" currently undergoing restoration), and its a perfect snapshot of 1980s UK culture. Denzil is a bit 'wide', but he's as "sahnd as pahnd" me ol' china. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Was already most of the way through the one you linked in your summary :) I also checked, can't get it on Netflix here, sadly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Stamps

Hey Dennis, I was looking at your article on the automobile manufacturing of the 1960s, and saw that it was dubbed the muscle car era...I mailed a letter via the good ole' U.S. Postal Service and the stamps lying around the house were a "muscle car" collection. If you haven't seen them, you oughta check them out. I found a picture here ... they may even be worth an inclusion in your article. Anyway, I hope all is well. Go Phightins! 21:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've copied this to the talk page on that article, will take a look and see. That might work as part of the "enduring influence section". Thanks! I'm still digging up sources on that article, but focusing on the Sunbeam article with Malleus right now, in between coughing spells and headaches, and doing the general help thing here on the talk page. I hate being sick. :p Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I here you with the sickness. Pollen count at historically high levels in my neck of the woods, and I have always had bad allergies, even when it's not this high. Mowing the lawn was a lot of fun, especially since I had to bag it and it was a little damp, so I had to move it from the bag into a plastic garbage bag by hand ... my sinuses literally feel as if they might explode at any moment . Good luck on the article. Go Phightins! 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The Sunbeam Tiger article is a nightmare to source. I'm just focusing on nothing but sources and leaving poor Malleus to sift through my finds at this point. It is so rare, most books on it (and only a few have ever been written on the car) are extraordinarily expensive if you can even find a copy, and none are searchable online. Once Malleus and I get this to GA, we will have earned that friendly little green pip. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A cure for what ails ye

Diagram of rat self-injecting morphine

Get well soon, Denzil.

Hillbillyholiday ^talk

• Thank you. I'm fully medicated right now, and if I didn't feel so bad, I would be feeling pretty good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alleged ban evasion

Hello Dennis. This is just a question. Naturally I am not going to admit being the same editor as others to have caused Bobrayner problems nor can I be expected to admit being somebody who has a history of editing. I see people just make their own minds up. Either way, can you confirm that an edit positively attributed to a "banned user" does not constitute vandalism if the revision in question can be seen as tendentious edit-warring? In short, I see a lot of edits with the summary "revert sock" even though it is not always the case that a sockpuppet/master's contribution is bad. What's the SP on that? Thanks. 188.29.192.144 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• When I'm acting as an admin/SPI clerk, I don't really consider the quality of the edits from the reporting party, nor the quality of the edits of the block evading sockpuppet. I just enforce the policies (which are decided by the community, not the admin) to the best of my abilities, and stay focused on that. It isn't personal. Protecting and blocking isn't difficult or stressful, I'm watching TV while doing it, its all automated scripts, single click stuff. So you aren't making me mad, or working me hard, and the paperwork is easy enough. You are shooting yourself in the foot, however. All your edits will just get reverted, and no one will even consider your perspective now. I suggest just backing off for a few months, then discussing with Sandstein and myself (there are two concurrent blocks). I'm always open minded, even willing to overlook this series of evasion if it were to stop, but it has be after you demonstrate you really have the goals of the encyclopedia first. Or you can keep socking and everything will get protected and you will never have a chance to have any influence over the article content. Like I said, it really doesn't stress me and you are only hurting yourself here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Dennis!!! With a mouth like mine, you'd have known if I wanted to "make you mad"! Far from it! Even with the position you've taken, I still have personal respect for you. Have no worries there. At the same time, I have to tell you the truth. I am not the person you think I am. If he were to edit, the IP would not be here in the south of Britain but some 1,800 miles south-east. He said he'd fly to Belgrade today and such he has. I think the correct term to describe deputies such as I is maybe a "meatpuppet". I will happily discuss everything, the good stuff, the bad stuff. But poor old Bob isn't having a nice time tonight is he! :)))) Looks to me like in two hours he's made about five edits stand. His life can easily be made bad. I'm more interested in clearing up a false ban than anything else. But where do we begin! 92.41.189.153 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis, you're not going to shorten your block by using lots of accounts like this. bobrayner (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of this post: [7], which is contradicted by the claim here. If you are a meatpuppet, you aren't a good friend, as you are only making it more difficult for him to come back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

revdel?

Could you or one of your stalkers please take a look at this diff and revdel it? Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RPPs for Evlekis

Hi Dennis, actioning the Evlekis-related semi requests already at RPP would be really helpful. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I already did about 5 minutes ago ;) Just woke up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protecting user js pages

Hi Dennis, I noticed you had protected User:Bobrayner/vector.js and User:Bobrayner/monobook.js for "persistent vandalism". Since those pages are only editable by the user and other sysops, I was wondering why you applied semi-protection. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even think about those being non-accessible to other users, even though I used to know that.... I got an email by the user requesting semi-protection of a list of articles in his own userspace, so I just protected them all as I knew there wouldn't be any contention in it. There has been an ongoing sockpuppet issue. Thanks for the reminder, I fixed those two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Legoktm (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Telling users the purpose of ANI

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.

---

Dennis, I hesitate to ask you anything, because IMO your thinking invariably wanders, and you get into preaching and consoling, where that is "not helpful" and off-point. (So, it makes discussion with you a problematical adventure which easily goes off-course.) Here is my specific, hair-spitting narrow idea for you: If you wanna be consistent, and wanna have some integrity, then you should forever forbade yourself from telling any user at ANI, that the purpose of dispute resolution at ANI is not what ANI is for. [Why? Because in the thread that was just closed, you referred to your saying that, how *you* handle those matters, and give allowance for other Admins to handle ANI matters differently. So if it is a matter of opinion, Dennis, then you have no right to anymore tell users what ANI is for, as though you are speaking to policy & guideline from knowledge of fact, without prefacing or qualifying your comment that it is your opinion only, and pure opinion where there is no consensus or definition. Because by stating it as though it comes from your knowledge of policy, stating it as though it is fact, you are asking a user to believe that you know what you are talking about, and they will go away thinking they have learned and understand that ANI is not for content dispute resolution issues, but conduct issues or emergency Admin-intervention-required issues, which as we've discussed, is not true at all, but opinion, and anyone is free to have their opinion, and opinions differ, which they do, especially amoung Admins, as already shown & demonstrated.)

I could have simplified the above by asking "What the hell are you telling new-ish editors what the purpose of ANI board is Dennis, as though you are educating them, in effort to educate them, when it is not education at all, but asking them to share your pure *opinion* about something, when other opinions are equally valid?? How do you justify doing that??" (But I am more civil than to be so blunt, course and rude, ya know.)

My own opinion, if I may be so bold Dennis, is that WP = chaos, and you as Admin probably thought you had a grip on the proper policy/guideline use of ANI, and that you were right about it, but now that Ihardlythinkso has questioned the consistency from Admins, you find it politically expedient to sidestep the issue that I've oh-so clearly raised, because you have no interest in ironing it out with other Admins, and once-and-for-all getting to consensus how the ANI board should or should not be used including accepting or rejecting threads for processing. That it is an issue you now decide to turn into "opinion". (How else could I reach a rational conclusion, in light of the facts?) Wouldn't you agree with me that WP does not have a consistent handle on what it thinks is the purpose of ANI. And so as you can see from User:ChrisGualtieri, it is a free-for-all in practice, and anyone can go there for any reason whatever. A "catch-all" instead of the BS of it being only for "emergencies", only for "last resort", only after "all other venues have been exhausted", and so on. All of that seems now to be a bunch of hot air, fiction or opinion, and those people stating same as though it is policy don't know what they are talking about. (Either that, or the shoe is on the other foot, Dennis. How can both be true?? [I shouldn't ask you such a question, because you are likely to come back with soft, fuzzy answer that yes, "both can be true"! It is why it is difficult and sometimes impossible to dialogue with you, the fuzzy thing. IMO you often go which way the wind is blowing. And the wind has no consistency.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You should have stuck with your original hesitancy and not posted this wall of nonsense. Dennis, if he chooses to respond, may be kinder.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh you're so sweet, Bbb, you're so always kind to me, it makes just wanna kiss ya. Thanks for putting your nose in uninvited, to stir up drama, to spit on me, to hussle to backup your Admin buddies, or whatever the H you think you're doing. Because we all know you Admins don't hang in groups, with your "for-life billyclubs", and think WP is just so you can roam and keep the puling masses silent. Or whatever. Nice chattin' w/ ya! (Did I say I wish I never see your usernameface again? No?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in debating you. If you feel I shouldn't be an admin for any reason (incompetence, abuse, etc), start a process at the proper venue, and if a consensus of editors thinks I should resign the bit, I will gladly do so. And Bbb23 is always welcome here, as is every editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• You completely miss the point Dennis (is it intentional?), because I wasn't interested in debating you, either. I'm asking about your consistency, on the one hand to instruct users at ANI what ANI is for, then to today invalidating those instruction to users, calling said knowledge "just my opinion". I asked you a clear question, Dennis, how you find that consistent, and for you to think about the consistency of your stances. And for you to work it out and explain to me, because I think I'm rightly confused about it. But instead, you see it as some sort of personal attack on you, which it is clearly not. (Didn't I say, more than once, that the problem of inconsistent use and view of ANI is rampant and shared by multiple Admins? You are just one that came to mind, for having espoused factually at ANI what ANI is for, and what it is not for. I've asked you to review doing that in the future, in light of your admission today that you haven't been coming from a point of knowledge about WP policy or guideline, but from a point of pure opinion. So in future you should always identify your instructions to users as such, rather than misguide them to thinking they understand process and policy, when it is mere opinion, and all opinions how to use ANI are created equal.

  You have many times, Dennis Brown, complimented yourself to others how you "keep an open mind" and "are always learning", but whenever Ihardlythinkso throws an idea across your path to self-reflect and consider, you consistently turn it into a personal thing, to shed the prospect of replying conscientiously to a good-faith question and puzzlement. (Is that demonstrating your AGF, Dennis?) Goodnight. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your statement "in light of your admission today that you haven't been coming from a point of knowledge about WP policy or guideline, but from a point of pure opinion." is inaccurate. It is things like this that make it a chore to discuss with you, and why I am not interested in doing so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what you wrote, Dennis: "I do stop threads that are really content disputes or over simple differences of opinions, but that is just how I do it, no one else is obligated to follow suit." (bolding is mine).

"Just how you do it"!? That doesn't mean the "other ways of doing it" are consistent with the purposes of ANI, at the same time that you have numerous times explained to users at ANI threads, instructed them, that ANI was not for the purpose they were bringing there? (This is supposed to make sense to me!? And it doesn't just because I'm a difficult user!? And my question about consistency isn't good-faith!?) You avoid, avoid, avoid my point, my question, and make it personal instead. I've been not singling you for anything, Dennis, so this has never been personally aimed at you. It is just that you have been a clear and memorable proponent of correcting the understanding of new-ish users ("educating") who have errantly gone to ANI, when it all comes down to "That's just the way I do it. Other Admins can do it differently." Instead of seeing the inconsistency in that, you attack me personally, as a bad user out to get you. Real civil. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• For the 4th time, I'm not interested in debating with you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This was not debate or attempted debate, Dennis, but rather followup to the Qs in same vein I was asking at the ANI thread, to which you voluntarily replied, and which I couldn't enter there since the thread was (thankfully and finally) closed. (Thanks at least for that.) You have a history of mischaracterizing my statements, and of attempting to put words in my mouth I never said, you should probably stop doing that -- it is not only uncivil, but you have been told clearly how antagonizing and baiting it is. (I don't, and have never to my knowledge, taken anything out of context or mischaracterized anything you have said at any time, and if you believe I have, I'm always open to correction to hear where you think I have gone wrong. [Just make your explanations clear and concise, not "soft & fuzzy", and I will understand them. Otherwise, if you have made an agenda to never engage with me, as it is clear Bbb23 has also done, then you should please shut your traps about me. It is poking and antagonizing. Deal!?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• For the 5th time, I've no interest in debating you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 06:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  Not a debate, Dennis; a simple Q. Your asserting "debate" numerous times, doesn't make it so. Repeatedly mischaracterizing my Q is pretty aggressive, even nasty, IMO. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• This makes the sixth time (including the close) I've made it clear I am requesting that you disengage. Please find something else to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  (You needn't reply, Dennis. This is just to document what I'm talking about.) Here is one of several examples where you sent editors away from the ANI board, back to article Talk, at same time instructing/educating/informing them how ANI venue ("Admins") is not for resolving content disputes:

  This is an ongoing RFC regarding editorial decisions. Admin do not decide content, editors do. Please take it back to the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 26 April 2013

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.

Hmmm. An administrator who isn't willing to defend their positions. Where have I seen that before? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm obligated to explain any administrative use of the admin tools and always will, in full detail. I'm not obligated to engage in debate that is unrelated to the use of the admin tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The low drama paths here, in other of effectiveness are: 1. just let Ihtso have the last word. 2. remove their comments from your talk page without additional comment. NE Ent 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)