User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Trivia

Trivia dogs. Should fictional dogs be added to dog articles? You said that trivia should not be added. Are fictional dogs trivia or not? se Japanese Chin. Many thanks, Hafspajen (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• In some instances, I can see mentioning a fictional dog, but not a complete list. Granted, I tend to be pretty lenient with cultural references as long as it isn't an exhaustive list. Noting that Lassie is a Collie might be ok in an article on Collies, for instance, because Lassie is so unquestionably notable (and I think led to an increase in demand for that breed....). Other editors are less generous, but under all circumstances it should be strongly cited, and any uncited claims removed. In the article you speak of, I don't see a reason for any of those. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And you mean it is OK to remove them? Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course, you can remove anything you want. In this case, the first 3 can be removed easily as they are unsourced. The fourth has one cite, but that isn't exactly strong and the section as a whole really adds nothing to the article. Removing is an editing decision, not an administrative decision. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am very sad that my pug is not listed under famous pugs...she even has her own Facebook page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sad too... Heard so much nice about - him? Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Dennis. I am delighted to see that you are reasonably active again, as I regard you as one of the fairest admins on the project, and I was disappointed some time ago when I found that you were not active. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks JBW, that means a lot coming from you, someone who helped me adjust to admin life two years ago. My time here will be sporadic so I have to avoid long drawn out ordeals (I'm on the road a lot more now), but I do enjoy helping out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Watch out

You're now on EllenCT's enemies list [1]. You have just become an honorary Ayn Rand reading, Randroid/Austrian Economics proponent keeping the truth from Wikipedia. If you engage her, you'll go round and round. Mattnad (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, as far as that benefit will stretch. Can't say I've actually read Rand or know anything about Austrian Economics. Not areas that I'm philosophically or intellectually interested in. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Round and round? Hmm, perpetual motion machine? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And the likelihood of either is equal. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WWVU-FM

Hey Dennis, if you have a moment, could you put a short temporary semi-protection on the WWVU-FM page, please? Looks like some college kids are having fun vandalizing the page. I haven't issued any warnings, as I was hoping they would just stop on their own, but they haven't. I think 31 hours would do the trick. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Can't do that. What they are doing might be "bad editing", but it doesn't fit the strict criteria of WP:VANDAL. That also means it is still subject to WP:3RR. Sorry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean edits like these aren't vandalism? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The last one might be, but the others aren't "obvious vandalism" as defined by WP:VANDAL. Just deleting sections or removing what they might think is the "old" logo isn't the same as spewing garbage into the article. The problem is, unless it is very obvious, then it looks like I'm favoring one editor over another by virtue of using the tools. And the station now goes by U92, so adding that is (arguably) trying to improve the article, even if they are doing it wrong. Is Jim Fruthtarna the Broadcaster of the year? I don't know, but adding it isn't "obvious vandalism". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • A Google search shows zero (!) matches for "Jim Fruthtarna" or "James Fruthtarna", no matches for the last name "Fruthtarna" either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • They haven't edited in 6 hours, see what happens tomorrow. If I have to google to see if the name exists, then maybe it isn't "obvious vandalism", that is my point. I meant to send them a note, but I was very busy this afternoon. I work during the day, sometimes it gets rather busy, particularly this week with several people missing at the office. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I left a note. If they come back with problematic edits, it would be easier to do something. I just can't block or protect unless it is completely obvious. I'm not up to getting dragged into a "you treated IPs unfairly" fight right now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

References? or just silly

Any one, refs [2]? Hafspajen (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Urgent attention required att controversial article

Edit warring at Leavitt Bulldog is off again - the article was created by article creation stuff, but there is a lot of disagreement and now edit war. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK; sorted out (I hope). They are at dispute resolution, thank God. Hafspajen (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe not. Hafspajen (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Interaction ban request. Thank you. Northern Antarctica ₵ 17:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think I will sit this one out. By anyone's definition (including IHTS and mine) I fall under WP:INVOLVED with him. We've had our ups and downs (currently up, and his comment linked there was more of a friendly jab with just a little salt on it), and I think I have pretty good bead on the situation, but it isn't likely anyone will listen to me anyway. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• More than anything else, this was just a courtesy notification since your name had been mentioned multiple times in the thread. Feel free to sit it out, although I must disagree with your doubting that anyone would listen to you. Frankly, I'd say you are one of the most respected people on this entire site and I think your opinions are generally held in high regard by most of the noticeboard frequenters. Northern Antarctica ₵ 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is kind of you to say, and I appreciate the notice. I mainly wanted to let you know I saw it and let you know why I was sitting out. In my old age, I've learned that it is often better to not voice an opinion and just the rest of the community hash things out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note...

...that your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Food Trucks in New York City that "Of course all the items in a list need to be notable" is actually contridicted by the MoS (WP:CSC #2). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I just replied. In this case NOTDIR still trumps. Like I said there, if most were notable and we just included a couple of non-notable ones to complete the list (like MOS says is fine), then I wouldn't have a problem. In this case, almost all of them are not notable, thus outside of the purpose of that guideline. In short, non-notable entries should be the exception in the list, not the bulk of the list. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI or not ANI, this is the problem?

Many people (all of them from the Balkans, by the way) are writing me that if I continue with my behaviour I might be blocked. I seriously think to report Direktor for his behaviour. Should I wait for a few days? Never reported anyone. I do not even know if there are the conditions or not to report him. The only thing I know is that he treats me like shit and I do not like it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• When there is a bunch or hornets buzzing around you, making more noise isn't the best solution. Like I said earlier, it is probably best to just take a couple days off of those articles, go edit something else, let everyone settle down. It doesn't even matter who is wrong or right, it is about making life easier for yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Difficult to do, though.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult, it takes a bit of discipline, I understand that. But it means less pain, so it is worth it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC for AfC draft

May I ask for the reasoning behind your removing the RfC tag from my AfC draft? It might be a common practice - I just don't see the reason behind it. Thank you for your attention. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• AFC is a stand alone place to develop articles, and has its own processes for approving or declining submissions. After it has been declined, you need to work within the AFC system to get the article up to snuff. Using an RFC isn't allowed because it is considered an end around the process. Taking a second bite of the apple. Like shaking a Magic 8 ball until it gives you the answer you want. Whatever analogy you want to use. It is a type of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and can get you blocked, particularly in areas like Fringe Science, Middle East, and other areas where WP:Discretionary sanctions are authorized. Sometimes you just have to live with the answer you get, go fix the article, or simply understand that the topic does not fit the criteria for inclusion. Not every article makes the cut. That is another thing you need to understand: The criteria is for including, not excluding. That means the burden of demonstrating that an article should be included is on the editors creating and maintaining it. You can't just make an article on Joe Bob Dunce with no references and say "you can't prove he isn't notable". That would be insane. The burden is on YOU to provide sources that verify the facts, using reliable sources, and that the topic meets the WP:GNG. In your case, the article you started was already covered in other articles (that alone is a criteria to delete), is a fringe topic, and a stand alone article was seen as undue (another policy it violates). To be perfectly honest, in the almost 8 years I've been here, I've seen 100 more just like it, and they all get deleted. It is well established that fringe topics without solid and multiple reliable sources AND community consensus always get deleted. That isn't likely to change. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain. My concern is that in the AfC process there is no way to get community opinions and reviewers seem to have absolute authority over article creation. About your statement "The criteria is for including, not excluding", I think it applies to the AfC review process but not the deletion process. In the latter the burden of proof should be upon the naysayers. Your opinion about my article differs significantly from mine and here might not be the right occasion to expound on it but thank you for letting me know about your viewpoint. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it applies to the deletion process as well. Someone wanting to delete an article needs to give a reason, but really the people reviewing must provide a reason why it meets the criteria for it to be kept. It isn't a matter of "how it should be", but rather how it really is, as dictated by consensus. As an admin, I close those discussions all the time, have for years. No matter how the votes stack up, if someone can't demonstrate it passes WP:GNG or similar, it gets deleted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to demonstrate "how it should be", the goal, then hopefully "how it really is" will find its way to approach the goal.

Regarding WP:GNG, can you advise me on how to demonstrate the notability of the topic Voice to skull? I thought my draft has already done that. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a couple of things to get past: 1. You must be introducing information that is not found in other articles or covered adequately there. 2. You have to show coverage by at least two main stream sources, and not just passing mentions, but where the topic is the central theme in that coverage. This is different than "citations", which can be from a book that just talks about a fact briefly. Proving notability means clearly showing that the topic is a stand alone concept worthy of inclusion as a stand alone article. I've looked around with Voice to skull, it isn't. It is part of some other articles, but the concept itself isn't accepted enough or covered enough in the mainstream to justify an article, which is why it has been deleted a couple of times. You can't change that, all you can do is wait for coverage, I suppose, but that might be never. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think so far my draft provides the most comprehensive coverage of the topic Voice to skull and no articles on Wikipedia surpass it in this respect, which demonstrates its value as a stand-alone article. And the topic did receive significant coverage by at least two mainstream sources as in reference 1 and 2 in the draft. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You can do what you want, but I get the feeling you are about to head into a world of hurt. I had to just delete yet another version of that same article by someone else (see below). I'm not sure what to tell you on this, other than I recommend dropping the subject altogether. But it is your choice to make. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and for hearing me out. Much appreciated. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Synsepalum2013

I've started an ANI thread - this [3] has to be the last straw. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for closing that RfA. Note that you should also add the result to WP:RFAF and WP:RFAU (per procedures). Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I knew I would screw up something, I'm just shocked that is all I did wrong. I have corrected those omissions, thank you for the info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Acoustic harassment

Here are Google Book results. You really come across as a jerk weighing in against me without knowing what the heck you are talking about after trying to bully when you were called (canvassed) into action by your Dutch amigo and his cadres of ... Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• No one canvassed me and I have no idea why you would think they have. All you have to do is look at my talk page, two discussions up to see I am very aware of the problem. I've been working the Voice to skull situation for days now. It has already been rejected at AFD a month a go, MFD, plus AFC a few times. At some point, you have to accept that the community has clearly spoken and said that this is NOT notable. As an admin, I pretty much have to shut it down after this many deletion discussions with the same outcome. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to the deletion discussion(s) for the Acoustic harassment article which I created. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You created Voice to skull then moved it to Acoustic harassment. Please, don't even try to be coy about it. Voice to skull has had several deletion discussions, formal and otherwise. If you find it abusive, WP:AN or WP:ARB, and be sure to tell them how you really feel. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Google books search results are all about marine usage of sounds to scare away predators of fish with the intent of reducing the number of predators netted along with the desired fish. Usually this means marine mammals netted as bycatch. As such, the page "Acoustic harassment" should exist, or under a different name such as "Underwater acoustic repellent" or "Acoustic deterrent devices".[4] It should not, however, have any relation at all to the notion that microwaves are being directed at human skulls to create the sensation of sounds or voices. That is the nonsense Dennis Brown is keeping out of Wikipedia, a laudable goal. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the point being lost in all the personal attacks is that the community is who determined that content should not be here via AFD and the ongoing MFC. They just previously gave me the tools to implement their will. Anyone thinking it is about my opinion is completely missing the point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Shocker: Microwave auditory effect. Since this doesn't exist, please speedily delete as soon as possible.

I think what's lost in all of Dennis's grotesque misrepresentations is that he speedily deleted a completely new article moments after I put it up for discussion at ANI. His edit summary includes the dishonest claim that he was deleting an article that was being recreated. That was a lie. He was also involved. These are the facts. The article had nothing in it whatsover about mind control (I didn't find that subject noted in the reliable independent sources I found and it seems to be covered adequately at mind control). The article was written from scratch with quality sources, including several noting the use of the technologies for animal control methods. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis, you involved in acoustic warfare now? Psychotropic weaponry not lethal enough? Your Dutch amigo, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• And Candle, if you want to win this article, you're not going to do so by claiming some admin was dishonest or involved (prima facie that's completely silly). You should counter Andy's arguments of synthesis, and find a way to make the "sonic blaster" terminology work. Unless, of course, all that's already covered in the main article, whichever one of the two options that may be--Sonic weapon looks like a shoe-in. FWIW, I don't think that the AfD-deleted article should count as a carbon copy of the recently deleted one, though that of course doesn't address Andy's OR/SYNTH complaint. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think facts are silly and don't matter. By the way, LYFE is not the name of the company, frozen foods are not "ready-to-eat" unless you are talking about ice cream (perhaps you're looking for prepackaged meal?), the grammar involved in "was founded in 2010 opening..." appears to me to be problematic and the sentence gets worse from there, a location where a business is headquartered or based is generally useful, "it claims" is troublesome phrasing as is your use of "supposedly", I would leave out "both" as being extraneous and redundant, the sentences in your second paragraph are composed with an absurd amount of commas and asides making the wording clunky, I would wikilink acronym, fast-food-restaurants, and Christine Day, and you've neglected to include even a single photograph. I suppose we can all use our imagination. At least this way you don't have to worry about demonstrating any bias. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the student has become the master. I remember copyediting your grammar and citations in the good old days. Feel free to improve on the stub: WP:SOFIXIT. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My own opinion didn't play into it, I just do what the community asks. If you think you're endearing yourself by using phrases like "incompetent", "abuse", "involved", "lie" "dishonest" and the like, then you would be mistaken. At that point, I just pretty much tune you out and let the community deal with it. As you can see above, editors that don't choose to attack on a personal level tend to bring out the best in me, such that I try hard to help explain, and if possible, assist them. Frankly, I've tried to be nothing but nice to you and you've been nothing but harsh with me since before this article. Doesn't hurt my feelings nor am I dependent upon the opinion of others to feed an ego, but it doesn't make me want to go out of my way either. Like I said, I just tune it out and move on to other things. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Far out

Hey man, given your latest venture I thought ya might like to take a look at this recent article from The Grauniad. Far out. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is a lot going on in the cannabis industry, it is exploding right now. Cannabis is only a small part of my new business, and I'm working with people that deal exclusively with medicinal cannabis versus recreational. Still, after seeing the success stories of CBD and other cannabinoids in dealing with epilepsy, PTSS and host of other illnesses, I sleep pretty good at night. The new business also helps people build surfboards, violins and pool cues, believe it or not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I rather gathered that from the article - big money to be made there, legally. And the article piqued my interest sufficiently to create Gary Tovar. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent. The big money is in recreational, most of the folks I work with give it away or at cost. Still, hopefully enough will bleed over for me to make a living. I'm under so many NDAs, I can't really say much more right now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not you

Dennis, looking at your response here, I only just realized that maybe you took my question about posting a welcome template to yourself. No, I was talking to Hafspajen. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

• Oh, good. I looked all through my contribs to find it but couldn't, that explains why. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Dennis. I wasn't very clear, but I was referring to the user Hafspajen was (obliquely) talking about on my page. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
    • Now I get that, it was my fault for not catching it the first time. I've been easily distracted lately due...oh look, a squirrel... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the assistance with the "Jak" socks at ANI. I appreciate it. It's not the first time he's made a stink like this before, but usually he keeps it to obscure talk pages. (Or his own, because he's blocked.) Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just playing whack-a-mole using the user creation log. No quarters required. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Assistance

I'm fairly certain this is considered a 'content issue', and not an administrative one, but I thought I'd ask for advice anyway. A certain user has begun forking content to a new article he created, titled 2014 East Ukraine crisis. This substantially duplicates the existing 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and Donetsk People's Republic, and I'm fairly certain that it was established so that he could skirt around talk page consensus that many of his edits were not acceptable in the context of WP:NPOV. He continues to 'expand' the article, by duplicating content that already exists, even if it is not verbatim copied. I've tried to avoid an edit war, started a discussion at his talk page, and I've also nominated the article for deletion. In the mean time, however, I'm not sure what to do. I suppose, in reality, there is nothing I can do.

However, the situation is once again causing disruption to editing process with regard to 'Ukraine crisis' articles. Obviously, as you can see, I'm invested in this matter, as I have been heavily contributing to the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article, so don't hesitate to take my comments with a grain of salt. However, we've had many discussions at that articles in question, Donetsk People's Republic and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. At the unrest article, it was decided to allow it to serve as a 'catch-all' article for unrest in the region. The Donetsk Republic article is presently in the middle of a discussion about repurposing it as a broader 2014 Donetsk crisis article, to deal with all the situations in Donetsk Oblast. Instead of contributing to these discussions in a meaningful way, which were not exactly going in the direction the editor in question wanted them to, he skirted around them to create his own article, and continues to make tendentious comments about the situation. He appears to have no interest in neutrality, but instead desires to fight 'bias with bias', which is always dangerous.

Basically, I'm just wondering if there is anything to be done to deal with this situation, or if I should just leave it alone. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've closed one RFC and commented on a review of another, so I've probably gotten as involved in that as I should without people questioning my bias (none, I just work here), as has been pointed out by a fellow editor. That said, the one article is already at AFD, which should deal with the "fork", one way or another. I'm not super experienced with WP:Discretionary sanctions, and this is just outside the Balkans area, so I don't think there is any special thing we can do via any Arb ruling. Very likely, it will get dragged before Arb and they will end up authorizing discretionary sanctions, but who knows when that will be. Right now, existing tools for dealing with the problems do appear to be inadequate, due to NPOV (both sides), socking and the sheer volume of individuals looking to right great wrongs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank makes sense, and is as I thought. I appreciate your advice. Hopefully something will be done to ameliorate this mess in the near future. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Thanks

Many thanks for the kind words about the "Eddy" Award. Your attention, comments to the recipients, and the occasional nominee is very much appreciated. There are thousands of worthy editors...some are 10 year veterans like this weeks Editor Gracefool and some are the newest of the new. Thanks, also, to some of your stalkers for their past nominations. If you haven't done so yet, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations. It might lessen some of the sting from participating at the Drama Pages. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I know for a fact that we need help with the Editor of the Week program, with noms and such. It isn't hard, it just requires more than one set of hands. My time is too chaotic to be of much help (although I do try and do some). If anyone were to pop by and help for just 10 or 20 minutes a week, I would be in their debt and eternally grateful. It really does mean a lot to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have four potential nominations on the drawing board at User:Buster7/sandbox#Eddy candidates. The biggest challenge is to keep the "Q" adequately loaded. I would rather not nominate them myself in order to maintain broad-based participation and involvement by WER members. So...if anyone wants to add some comments or, even better, actually make the nomination...feel free. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Remind people that they can nominate anonymously via email if they must. Some might not want to be named. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Right! Feel free to e-mail me if anonymous is your choice. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Buster, what needs done during the week? I have been awarding on Sundays, but for a few months (until July or so), should have intermittent time during the weeks with which I can help clerk, if necessary. Let me know. Go Phightins! 19:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks for asking GoPhi. You've been there since the start.

-This is a template where I create the userboxes for the Hall of Fame and for display of the current weeks editor at the WER Project Main Page and the Editor of the Week Main Page. I could use some help with finding cool and appropriate Images and creating a great bio.

- 2014 Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy at the Editor of the Week page needs to be updated weekly...usually on Monday after you give out the award.

- There are some other steps but its probably easier for me to keep doin' them rather than trying to explain the process. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What would be swell is if you documented how to do this. That would make it easier for others to help, and in the event you want to take a vacation, or just spread yourself out and touch other programs with WER, it would make it easier for someone to pitch in. Even admins have a how-to page, although most of us just yell a lot and block everyone because it is easier ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The basic procedures are documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Administrative procedures. The primary step that is missing, as far as I know, is the current method of updating the Hall of Fame page, which involves copying the current EotW infobox to a new archive page. The current archive pages can be found at Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page; the next one in sequential order should be used. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, so it just needs updating. That link needs to be added on the main EotW page somehow, if it isn't already. I do miss things. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the main Editor of the Week page; the administrative procedures section is at the bottom. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• facepalm* - Ok, I see I'm useless here. You guys obviously don't need my help :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not simplistic?

It's not a simplistic solution if all you're thinking about is the moment at hand. If you're thinking about the long-term good of Wikipedia and how it's affected by an editor with a history of abuse, it's a simplistic solution. 71.139.142.249 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• It doesn't end at ANI, I expect to keep watching. And the simple fact is, sometimes two people just don't get along. Neither of you are saints here. First step is to try to separate you. If that doesn't work, then block one or both from editing. I prefer to not block unless I've tried something else. My long term goal isn't harmony between everyone, it is building an encyclopedia, and frankly, both of you don't help with that if you are bickering. So handling the moment at hand quickly is part of the long term goal. If you just avoid each other, it isn't hard to not piss each other off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep. Don't expect admins to be able to solve all behavioral disputes, and this is one of those cases where a quick and practical solution is the best thing to do. Having said that, I need to speak my mind at ANI as well. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban needed

Hey Dennis, can you get a WP:IBAN between me and the IP user that goes under the aliases 71.139.148.192 and 71.139.142.249? This user insists on stalking me and calls me a persistent vandal, sockpuppet, and block evader even though I have done such a thing only once. I wish to continue editing without being pointed at by this editor.

I've also notified Drmies of this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would oppose an interaction ban, and I oppose most interaction bans, and I've never supported one with an IP, which isn't an actual account so enforcement is literally impossible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try my best to stay away from them, then. Thanks anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Facilitating the bad behavior of long-time abusive editors

Oh, so you think that a namby-pamby "Please don't do this again" plea to a long-term abuser (vandalism, sockpuppetry, block evasion) isn't facilitating their bad behavior? Guess again. 71.139.148.192 (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was namby-pampy plea but a comment that reflects the hope that two editors can act in a mature, responsible, respectful manner. Depending on how an investigation turns out, this might be a misplaced hope. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I always try to appeal to the adult side of people and give them a chance to just walk away, cool down, and realize their own actions may have contributed towards the disagreement. If that doesn't work, I block them. I'm not a psychologist, nor am I here to insure everyone loves everyone, I'm here to build an encyclopedia. If people refuse to "get it", I don't waste time with them, but I'm always willing to extend the benefit of the doubt once. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is certainly a reasonable position to take, at least at first. But is this really a first-time offense, or is it more like 13 months of slipshod editing and unremitting disruptive behavior on the part of Epicgenius? -- 71.139.148.192 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• You're going to have to find some better diffs if you want to have a strong case; I have removed the links because they don't prove anything—they're talk page archives, not signs of disruptive behavior. In the meantime, I suggest that you stop stalking me. It isn't appreciated, and you should really stop it right now.
• I've only been active for 13 months. You are implying, in bad faith, that I have a history of long-term disruptive editing; having arguments with Beyond My Ken here and there is not disruptive editing. Don't you have something better to do than to try to make a case against me? --Epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hola amigos

As as I say up at the top of this page (but many of you probably skim over) I will be at a trade show for several days and won't have access to this account. Even today, I might tie up a few loose ends, but won't be around much. Urgent stuff should go to someone else, such as Drmies or Bishonen (They just LOVE being linked and dumped on this way :). Looking forward to a nice time, see you next week. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just remember, Bishonen does the hardcore blocks, shooting from the hip; I'm the nice one. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Riiiiggghhhhtttt, and if you haven't heard that sketch, you are missing out.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, but who's the smart one? Dennis is in Denver ... sampling championship-grade Cannabis ... you decide ... DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Man. And he keeps refusing to send me samples. Dennis, I'm a doctor, you know--a "researcher". And so is Dr.K, and Dr. Blofeld, and apparently this "DoctorJoe" person, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, yes ... I am, actually, a fuhzhishun ... and I was in Denver a couple of weeks ago, giving a talk ... and nobody is amenable to sampling ... or maybe it's not work the effort ... sorry ... DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • There are, however, a LOT of Domino's Pizza trucks on the roads at any given time... DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm packed and ready. I've been supplying specialized UV lights to growers in states where medicinal cannabis is legal for years, but it is getting legal so fast, it is time to delve into the culture. The science I already understand fairly well, now it's time to really get to know the people one on one. I don't hide the fact that I use cannabis for a neurological issue in my arm and for my back. I've had prescriptions for moderately high doses of hydrocodone for over 10 years, but the addiction risk is just too great, so it is either suffer or find a better treatment, which I did. Do me a favor as a friend, let me borrow your eyes for 7 minutes to watch this CNN short [5] to see why this is important to me. Charlotte is a big reason why things are about to change. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nice story. I'm a big believer in CBD, and I'm not really sure why it's taken so long to gain general acceptance, other than the usual "just say no" ignorance. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy 420

Denver is strange. Legal or not, people are smoking all over the place, including inside the venue. Cops arent concerned, and hard to find. People of all ages and lifestyles. Honestly, the most polite crowd Ive ever seen in a very crowded venue. Rather refreshing, I must say. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (Alt. of Dennis Brown) 19:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I bet a bag of Doritos™ isn't hard to find though, but maybe hard to hold onto. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In the words of Frank Sinatra...."doo-be-doo-be-doo". ```Buster Seven Talk 19:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • Done for the evening. The outdoor section allows smoking and free samples can be found everywhere, people just handing out little baggies with a gram in them. People lined up at boothes to try hash and such in special pipes...free of course. Its odd for me, who hasnt lived in a state with any kind of cannabis allowed. I swear you could feel the freedom in the air. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (Alt. of Dennis Brown) 22:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• That was a surreal experience, and one I'm glad I was able to participate in. I felt like an outsider in most ways, but it was humbling to watch so many people from such diverse geographical backgrounds, ethnicities, and ages, all crowded into such a tiny space, simply getting along and doing so politely. Denver is definitely a cultural experiment. I will still be scarce for a few days, work calls. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup

Go fuck yourself. — lfdder 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• You seem to be taking my redaction of your personal attack on DangerousPanda poorly. Had you shown any semblance of decorum, I would ask for you to be unblocked myself, but I don't see the point since you put up the retired banner. Your comment here doesn't get under my skin, not even enough to remove it, but it does create a hostile environment for other editors to have to work in, which is likely why you got the 1 month block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:2013 Stanley Cup playoffs

Thank you for protecting this. However, is there a good reason why it cannot be upgraded to indefinite autoconfirmed? There is literally nothing to change on it, as it is a past event, so it is only inviting IPs to vandalize it.Hoops gza (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Generally, indef is reserved for extreme cases, via the WP:5 pillars. If it isn't a high profile template, we usually use escalating protection. It isn't a matter of my opinion, but rather the opinion of the community as a whole, I just comply with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of Module talk:Location map/data/Germany/attribution

I requested full protection of Module talk:Location map/data/Germany/attribution, and you replied "Already done", but it's only template-protected right now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Jackmcbarn:, right now, only admins and people with the templateeditor bit set can edit it, no one else can. Isn't that sufficient? If not, ok, I just generally try to use the lowest level of protection needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't we generally fully-protect pages that only exist for their history? The rest of the pages named like that have full protection (at least most of them do). Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and set full protection, I just didn't want to cut off people that might have an interest in editing it, but you are probably right that full protection should be fine here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

TRPOD brought to ANI by 2 new editors

Doesn't this seem unlikely to be a coincidence? Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, that is odd. The blocked SPA, Lw1982, is using a mobile phone for all his edits, while Tekken isn't, although his first edits included blue linking his user page, which is unusual. I'm not sure of any link except for filing against TRPOD, and CU would probably refuse as they likely are different IPs based on the "mobile edit". Coincidence? Maybe, TRPOD can be pretty blunt and gets noticed a lot. Regardless, it is worth keeping an eye on just in case. Thanks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I won't spoil the surprise, but I'm prepping an SPI report right now. Didn't have to look too deep, just at some deleted contribs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it, thanks. I figure we just reach the tip of the iceberg with socks. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick Vujicic

These are the strangest things I've seen in a long time. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I figured he just copy/pasted from another article for the purpose of defacing, but looking closer, it is pretty wierd. Probably a user subpage somewhere. Odd little critter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's my user page. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Facepalm ah, so this time, it was personal. Ping me if he visits again, should be easy to link him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Italic title help

Greetings, how would we go about making this article's entire title italic: Do You Love Me (Now That I Can Dance)?Hoops gza (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I tried adding the {{italic title|all=yes}} option, but that didn't work. I also tried {{Correct title}} which is an ugly kludge but it didn't work. Not sure. Really, the all=yes option should have fixed it, since that is specifically what that option was created to fix. I'm hoping someone that is more familiar with templates will pipe in here and help. Stalkers? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Ok, never mind, I got it to work. I put the {{italic title|all=yes}} AFTER the infobox. Really, I'm not sure why I had to do that, but the instructions for template:italic title said I could try that and it worked. I also had tried DISPLAYTITLE:Title as well, no good. Either way, it seems to be working now. I learned something new. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As have I! Thank you for the help.Hoops gza (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Indefinite Protection of the Snakebite article...

Thanks, however, it is still unprotected. I think you may have forgotten to go ahead and protect the page. Thanks. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 04:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't even remember that last night, but I was running a fever. Perhaps I shouldn't work the boards when I'm sick. Fixed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Denis. the above editor motivation to lock that article is because the consensus scientific reliable sources don't mention his favorite snake (black mamba). a very detailed explanation has been written in the talk page, why it is so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Snakebite#Most_venomous_snakes_of_the_world_list_-_Ernst_and_Zug_.281996.29._Snakes_in_Question:_-_Totally_not_reliable79.176.152.55 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm no herpetologist, but you can discuss it at the talk page of the article and if there is a consensus, request an edit. After a week or so, you can request the page be unprotected if you like, I take no offense if another admin has a different perspective. I just calls them as I sees them, and take action using the best judgement I can muster. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:BMW AG

Hello, please hardblock Special:contributions/BMW AG. It is a vandalism-only account, and it is also a promotional username (BMW AG). No admins are responding.Hoops gza (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• This admin is heading to bed and I don't have time to read up. I see their talk page is a copy of someone elses talk page. Might be a sock, forgotten user password, or something else. Someone does need to look at it, I just don't have time this evening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Thanks for the feedback here. The consensus has been established. The issue is that the consensus is not enforced by those two editors who helped establish it in the first place. Thanks for your help in advance. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't really see consensus, which is why I suggested WP:DRN. It is a more formal setting for hashing out issues just like this. Without reading the actual sources, what I see is a very sincere but somewhat heated discussion on how to interpret (or how to NOT interpret) the sources. Sometimes it takes a little heat to get down to the facts, so this is one of those times when it is important that admin do NOT get involved "as admin" and impose their own will. From the looks of it, everyone is genuinely trying to do the right thing, but they just have different opinions on the quality of sources and what is primary/secondary. This is exactly why DRN works, it frames everything, helps define things, and gets everyone on the same page. As long as it is approached in a non-confrontational way, where everyone agrees to hash it out objectively and live with the results, the success rate is very high in situations like this. If everyone agrees to participate, it actually takes less time than continuing to argue on the talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think it has been resolved now, from what I can see on the talk page. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Damn, you're good. A very eloquent (and constructive) summary of the problem. I thank you. Evan (talk|contribs) 03:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my involvement made that more difficult for you. Sometimes I am a major pain, I know, but I am not working against you and I hope you know that much.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Evan. Graham's hierarchy has been a sidekick for years, helping me stay out of trouble. No worries Mark, I never question your motives. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's funny, the triangle is always what comes to mind when I'm in a dispute with someone. It really is a pretty accurate dissertation of common argument styles. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why I Have Undone Your Revert

Hey! I am letting you know exactly and precisely why your revert was undone. I did it simply because I think you completely missed my points. Allow me to fully explain. I am not one of the people that wanted to move Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana. It is the common name of the dried-up buds and leaves of the Cannabis plant that specifically is smoked (in bongs, blunts, joints, and pipes). This is commonly called marijuana, not cannabis. Marijuana is the common-name of this particular variety. This is also the working-title of the page. It is not intended to rival Cannabis (drug) (in fact, if you want...or I can...make a clear distinction between the page and Cannabis (drug) in the article-header. If you would like this page to be called something else, then please suggest it in an RfC on the article's talk page. This is the creation of an entirely new article, based off of the stub section in the Cannabis (drug) article at the section in the link. Thank you for your understanding! :) Good day/night. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 08:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I already left a warning on your page before I saw this. Do not modify/refactor my comments on a talk page again to make it looks like I am saying something different, or you will be blocked. That is one of those things that crosses the line is such a way that my patience is quickly exhausted. If you want to discuss something, do so on the article talk page first, don't edit war. I'm aware of the common names here, I understood your argument, you are simply mistaken, which is why the RFC was started, to develop community consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• How do you figure that an RfC is needed for the creation of a new article? This is really confusing. As for the strikethrough it was not because [I thought] you had "withdrawn" your statement...it was because the statement was no longer valid and anyone reading it would be extremely confused (as it said one thing, and what was displayed was another). There was a clear and logical reason that the new article was being created. I hope you realize that whenever people see your claims, they are going to be confused and will think that someone tried to re-name Cannabis (drug)→Marijuana without consensus. By the way, you state that, "you have already moved this to Marijuana against a consensus (which I reverted), yet you have mysteriously left out that title in this discussion, seemingly as an end around attempt." Are you referring to myself when you said "you"? I was not the one to put in any RfC and am quite new to the Cannabis portal! Anyway, I want to know what you think would be a proper name for the article referring to the dried flowers and leaves. I really wouldn't mind if we called it Cannabis (drug) dried flowers and leaves or Dried flowers and leaves of the Cannabis plant; these names just seem to be a bit awkward. What working title do you suggest? Thanks. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:Content forking. I've explained my view of the creating of a new article at the talk page of Cannabis (drug), it appears to be an end around the previous discussions. As for what to call any new article for "dried cannabis", I fail to see the need at all, but regardless, the place to discuss that is at the RFC itself, not on my talk page. That way, everyone can participate. The main point being: Once a discussion is started, don't go mucking about reverting while the discussion is going on, and never, ever refactor the comments of another editor, any place. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Drat

I am disappointed that NorthernAntarctica/AutomaticStrikeout self-requested his accounts be blocked. It seemed in his latest incarnation, he was enjoying some stats updating on baseball articles, but I imagine there were other factors. Anyway, have a good Sunday. Go Phightins! 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It was not a pleasant experience, but I respect him enough to comply with his wish. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Drat seconded. The pleasure of seeing you back more is somewhat dimmed by AS's departure. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Let the man actually see the post!

At User:Jimbo Wales, it's only fair to allow time for Mr. Wales to actually see the post I placed. Also, please read through the You can edit this page! section on Mr. Wales' user page. My post is intended to be nice, and also fair per Mr. Wales' statement in the You can edit this page! section. People revert too quick there, and it's disappointing when it's done before Mr. Wales even has a chance to see it himself! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm aware, just felt like that was better on a talk page due to the format of the information you put there, but I'm not going to edit war over it. I didn't think there was anything nefarious about your edits, and I only had removed the specific sections that were more akin to a talk page, not all of them. "Anyone can edit" works both ways, after all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I posted it on Mr. Wales' talk page. That's fine. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo

Normally I don't bother much with the typos of others, but I found this one for "reference" amusing: [6] isaacl (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I do depend on Google Chrome telling me when I've misspelled something, entirely too much. Of course, it is useless when I spell the wrong word properly. I've corrected it, and thank you for the chuckle. :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

List of soft drink flavors

I know you're a busy admin (seen you around a lot at Ani, etc.; also, thanks for all your input at WER, which I'm a member of). Regardless, check out List of soft drink flavors and feel free to improve it! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see that WP is finally zeroing in on the really important stuff. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully... NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My contribution to the soft drinkopedia was adding the "retro" image at Big Red (drink), after buying a four pack at Cracker Barrel. I love Big Red, grew up drinking it in Texas. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: - Hey, no problem, I'm having fun with it. Just added Peach. I will also drop notes on the talk page. I'm pretty easy to get along with on these types of articles, not always right, so if you think I'm mistaken, don't hesitate to say so. These articles build faster and easier if we all just have fun with them. Great idea for a list, btw, you've done a great job so far. Nice to have a zero pressure, non-political project to play with from time to time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's appreciated: collaboration has become a rarer thing on Wikipedia. Thanks again, and yes, having fun is key in many ways! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember bacon flavored soda.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Lester's makes one.[7] That reminds me, I really, really need to make some bacon infused vodka. I've been wanting to try it with a Bloody Mary. Perfect for Sunday brunch. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See the new article I created a few days ago: Bacon soda. (I nominated it for dyk a day or two ago). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Groucho Marx

Thank you for blocking the troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I think we have a problem here[8] Somebody changes data slightly, but not correctly. The dog article data were wrong. Quite a lot of them, and it will take time to verify too. Something is wrong . Hafspajen (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have company over, so I'm not going to have time for deep inspection here, you might want to ping @Drmies: or @Yunshui: or @TParis: and see if they can dig into this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So, I looked at Billy West and what I found was that (besides shitty sourcing on that article altogether), the birth cite in the lead says 1952 [9] but the cite in the infobox says 1950 [10] (IMDB). So while we can't really give much credence to IMDB, it does give some credibility to the user that perhaps this edit might be in good faith.--v/r - TP 23:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Buscemi&diff=prev&oldid=606959224 Changed Steve Buscemi's picture to some football player. Hafspajen (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Materialscientist has already pressed the appropriate buttons for this chap... move along folks, nothing to see here... Yunshui ^雲_水 18:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, just a little thing.. He has to have the last word, I guess. Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted as he was refactoring another's comments. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of heaping more on your plate?

Because you are perfect for the Dispute resolution Notice Board.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I appreciate the thought, and I considered it at one time, but right now, I do have too much on my plate. I'm right in the middle of creating a whole new website for a company I just started (200-300 pages to go, and I do all text and images), plus the blog and social media links, plus I run a dept. for a small manufacturer, plus I'm married, and I really, really want to get started on this so Eric can come in and clean up after me. I'm still a bit frustrated with Wikipedia, to be honest, and I'm probably better off working on actual content. Readers don't care about squabbles as much as they do interesting articles. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  Amen to that. I gave up caring about anything on WP except for articles, on the basis that I couldn't change anything anyway, and I've not been blocked since. I recognise that's not a healthy attitude, but then WP isn't a healthy environment. Eric Corbett 19:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Double Amen. To be honest after seeing how Eric jumped back, headlong into content creation, I decided to do the same. Went back to almost nothing but creating new articles and researching and cleaning up existing articles on Hawaiian Royalty and history. I gotta tell you...I enjoyed the strict content creation and need to get the hell away from all the conflict. I absolutely agree....I am probably better of with just content creation. So...back to work everyone! ;-)--(Mark Miller)Maleko Mela (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

    Content creation also has its fair share of conflicts of course, but they can generally be resolved, unlike the malaise at the heart of Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 20:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Content disputes can be resolved by verifiable facts and simple compromise. Facts and compromise have no place in a good old fashioned drama dispute. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  I'm still banned from commenting on RFAs, that's how corrupt the system is here. I've simply realised that nobody is listening, so why waste my time. Eric Corbett 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

At least you can vote, people do pay attention to what you have to say in your vote, and that is more powerful than a question anyway. I've asked a question that has tanked an RFA once, but usually the answer really doesn't affect my vote, I've usually made up my mind, even if I keep an open mind. How they deal with the whole experience is more telling than any well rehearsed answer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have found that asking questions is an almost worthless endeavor. Not always but for the most part. I tend to look a little too much at some candidates so I have just decided that if i get involved i will just vote and pretty much leave it at that. I tend to see reason not to like candidates from some of their answers but sometimes I find a jewel.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I rarely even look at RFAs these days, let the children have their playground. Eric Corbett 22:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but it's sometimes like watching children who's parents have dropped them of at the park and then went to a local bar.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Just like the rest of WP then. Eric Corbett 23:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Some editors can't handle disputes of any kind. These are the ones that will blame you for their "retirement". I don't have time nor the inclination to accept blame when someone else can't see that their sources do not support the claims they make and continue to wikilawyer the point to death.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've actually had fun working on List of soft drink flavors a bit. It's one of those lists that makes you dig around, low impact, low stress, fun articles where you see stuff you never have heard of, then go read about it and learn something new. Its the kind of stuff I used to do before I became an admin, gnomish type things with no hassles, and you can pick up and put it down easily. It still needs lots of work and cleanup, but there is no rush. I like that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Regarding this edit: did you mean to say that you "can't see how" doing action X would "contribute towards a block", rather than "wouldn't"? isaacl (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, and thank you. Corrected. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

user removed my rfc for no reason and accused me of bad faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrikaner&diff=607348441&oldid=607348252, can someone revert his edits and explain to this user why he cannot do such disruptive edits 120.50.35.122 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would want to hear what User:HelenOnline has to say before I jump to any conclusion. Keep in mind, this is my talk page, not an official notice board, but if there is a simple misunderstanding or larger issue, I'm happy to offer 2c worth on it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • what do you mean just see talkpage history and reasearch it 120.50.35.122 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • There may be more than the one page and I'm not up for digging through every contrib of you both. If someone is accusing someone of doing something wrong, I like to hear both sides, in addition to looking at histories. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • I did notice one thing, there is a fatal flaw with the idea of that RFC. Wikipedians do not get to decide what they are called. Policy clearly states this. We have to use what the sources use, the name they use. We don't just "decide", we don't vote for the name, we simply parrot the sources. That is what an encyclopedia does. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

it was about what intro to use in the article , why is exactly is that a "flaw" ? 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

and there are no sources used in the current version which the user i was talking about made 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Helen's actions, I'm saying you can't just have a vote on how to identify someone's race or nationality. It is my opinion you jumped the gun by going to an RFC. If you really want to accomplish something, bring some sources to that talk page that support the version you want to use, since you are the one that wants to change it. That is the normal way to do things here. You use an RFC when there isn't enough input from just that talk page, or you need a much wider audience to enter the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

i just wanted that the intro to be changed from "Southern african ethnic group" to "ethnic group in southern africa", did you not see that i wrote that the current version lacks sources and should therefore be reworded to its original version 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

besides how do i supposed to "you need a much wider audience to enter the discussion" without an rfc 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Helen explained on the article talk page over two hours before the OP posted here asking for assistance. GB fan 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that this issue has also been posted on ANI. I intervened in an edit war over the article's hatnote, and posted a comment about it in a talk page section the IP had started. After another editor and I had commented there the IP edited the beginning of the section and turned it into a RFC without any explanation anywhere, changing the context of our comments. I reverted their changes to the beginning of the section and asked them to start their RFC in a new section. I clearly explained what I had done in the thread, with reference to relevant talk page guidelines, and I never accused them of bad faith. HelenOnline 20:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Things are always a bit more complicated than at first look. When someone wants to use my talk page as an admin board, I want to make sure everyone involved is informed. Of course, it isn't an admin board, but if I can prevent it from reaching one, I will. Here, this does look like a tempest in a teapot, and as I stated earlier, doesn't really look like a great idea anyway since it hasn't been fully explored by the editors of the article first. On that note, I will just bow out unless needed further. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please

Could you please delete this from the persons userpage? [11]. Not nice. Hafspajen (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Someone already reverted. Not really bad enough to RevDel, but I did block the IP for 31 hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. Hafspajen (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you revisit this?

Hi Dennis, the time is near, I believe, and while I think I have some nominators lined up, I was wondering if you would mind a cursory review to make sure I am not missing anything obvious before turning this link blue? Thanks. Go Phightins! 23:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Give me a day. Watching "Orange is the new Black" with Mrs. Brown. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you much. Not looking to kickoff for a few weeks anyway. Go Phightins! 23:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Whenever you get to this, please ping me; my watchlist is growing increasingly large, and I have noticed that I am missing things I used to catch :-) Thanks again, and please don't rush; as mentioned, I am still a few weeks away. Go Phightins! 23:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Holy hell @Go Phightins!:, looking at my prior evaluation and recommendations, it looks like you actually listened and followed instructions. I'm impressed. A quick poke around, and everything looks pretty clean. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I got into content creation, but feel I can help out in between content projects; content gets boring too at times :-) Thanks for the vote of confidence. Go Phightins! 01:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way...

I think your concern (as you expressed here) about his approach at times is fairly justified. I hope one of his peers will make him see that soon, for his own sake and for the project's sake too. If attempts have been made so far, clearly they have not worked, but if they have not been, they need to be made before it is too late. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know. I like him, and actually respect him as an admin. I do think he is a little rough around the edges, but then, I can be a bit pompous or cocky at times. We all have flaws, so it isn't a jab at him personally. When I see a discussion about his methods, it always seems to devolve to pushing and shoving, and nothing of any substance ever reaches the page, unfortunately. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think he's alright. There are a few editors who have or still are in a similar category, such that when their methods or style of interaction (at times) is raised, more drama results (if not a spectacle) each time as little changes. This happens more in situations where the actual work can be quite sound too, which is the positive. I think it will come down to him and whether or not he is prepared to review those comments from another perspective, and make adjustments more actively to avoid issues later down the track, as I doubt this stretches for less than a handful of occasions. But time will tell ultimately, and hopefully this all becomes moot anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Any admin that is active and willing to jump into controversial areas is going to get called biased, abusive, etc. from time to time. It is part of the job. I think sometimes, DP gets defensive and you can see the frustration in his comments during an investigation, and that might be making it worse. When I've been dragged to ANI, I tend to make few statements, generally just saying "I stand behind my actions but I'm willing to comply with the consensus of the community". It isn't that I feel any different than DP when I'm on the block, I just choose to be very non-confrontational when I can. Personally, I think that makes people more willing to consider your perspective, or at least give you the benefit of the doubt, as it doesn't look like you are digging in. One of the most useful skills that I've learned at Wikipedia (and still working on), one that has benefited me in the real world as well, is the art of knowing when to shut up and keep calm. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ZackDickens12

Re "ask an admin (like me, Writ Keeper, or Boing!)" - I think you're forgetting something ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• The rest of your name? If figured he would see the link above and just ping one of us. I went ahead an expanded the name. Unless you are talking about the block preventing him from asking us outside of a ping template. I don't expect it to last but a couple more days. I'm not filled with expectations there anyway. Once an editor starts talking about age, however, I feel compelled to give them that info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you're forgetting that Boing isn't an admin at the moment. come back, boing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh Facepalm. Sorry, but Boing! will always be an admin in my mind. He even mentored me coming out of my RFA. Do I need to start an RFC to force him to take the bit back? I'm not saying he has to use the tools all the time, but the average clue level of admin goes up when he has the bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the thoughts, but no, I'm not rejoining the ranks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(For anyone stalking here but not there, this is why not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC))

Drug to the Administration Noticeboards

I see that you recently commented about being drug to the administration noticeboards. I'd like to offer up {{User:Hasteur/AN-Reports}} as a humorous way of observing the futility of such an action. Have a wonderful day. Hasteur (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oy. It has been a while since I've been take to ANI for my "misdeads", perhaps I'm getting soft and need to abuse people more ;) I did take my own block to WP:AN today, something was odd about the situation. Those don't count, no drama when you self report. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Unless the edit you want to revert is vandalism or came from a banned/blocked/sock user, please do not revert edits, as you did to Chevrolet Corvette ZR1, without explaining why it should be revert via the edit summary. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• You added a youtube link. And it is safe to say I understand 3RR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it would be nice if an uninterested person looked in. You are saying that youtube is just as reliable as road and track and keep reverting. I've used the article talk page, you haven't. Now we need a third party to come in and explain, as I'm a regular editor on that article and can't put on my admin hat. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, because both are self-published sources. There is no such thing as a reliable source. The Internet is ALL SELF-PUBLISHED, full of forums, YouTube videos, and even more officially reliable —— magazines. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, there is proof that the ZR1 that ran a 10.74-second quarter mile time was stock. ☻ 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      • We can use Youtube as a source if the creator of the video is verified to be a reliable source. For example, if National Geographic published a video on their Youtube channel then we could cite that. If Buffy, the amateur zoologist, uploaded a video with similar content, we could not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
        • As I said in my previous comment, there is no such thing as a reliable source. Even channels like NG can edit their videos, etc. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
          • The Wikipedia community disagrees with you as WP:RS pretty much dictates article content. And since you're editing Wikipedia articles... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
          • On the Chrysler 300 page, under SRT8, it refers to a video uploaded by an amateur driver. Why isn't that reference removed? Because someone proved it's a reliable source. It's possible for a 2005 300C SRT8 to hit the quarter mile in a M5/E55-like 12.67 seconds. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
            • The policy on reliable sources is Reliable sources. As for another article, may or may not need to be trimmed as well, but that doesn't affect this article, via WP:WAX. Just because one article is screwed up, that doesn't justify doing the same on another. Sometimes, adding an unreliable source is ok, but that is very rare, and never to prove a contentious fact. In this case, the youtube video is not a reliable source. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
              • While Dennis was writing that I was indeed trimming the Chrysler article to remove that unreliable reference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
                • I've also issued a 3RR warning to the IP on their talk page. If you revert again, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, Dennis, I didn't know you're an administrator. I'll be careful next time, okay? 99.155.195.72 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • • It doesn't matter that I'm an admin, honestly. Since I'm editing, I can't act as admin anyway, and it doesn't make me better or more right. Now, the part you deleted last time, it was your 3RR, but I could actually agree that a tinyurl image is a weak ass source and probably shouldn't be there to prove a performance claim, same as the youtube video. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock of indef blocked User:Altimgamr

Hello. Per the duck test 99.155.195.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a very loudly quacking sock of User:Altimgamr. Edits car articles and has a very typical style in his edit summaries (look at the contributions) etc. Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Figures. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just an aside

Welcome to my world. Paradoctor (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I try really hard to always assume good faith, but make no mistake, I often have grave doubts, even while my words here are sugary sweet. I was hoping that a day or two might at least get them to back down a bit. I don't have a problem with them professing wacky ideas on their talk page as long as they can contribute elsewhere with a modicum of objectivity, but it doesn't look like that is going to be possible. He really has blinders on when it comes to his own theories. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Dunning-Kruger is strong is this one. I may look a bit bloodthirsty here, but it is hard to see just how far out LCcritic operates without quite a lot of hands-on. Ah well, it looks like this matter will be settled soon, so let's enjoy the weekend instead. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm hanging with the dogs and wife, watching Netflix, which is my favorite way to spend the weekend. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again

I am being trolled by FPAS, see history here. Something needs to be done about this, the guy has been on at me for years now. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: is known to edit in those areas and has on that article previously, so I don't want to assume too much. I think his summary here is more blunt than needed, but its something I would look at twice. I don't know the subject matter, but his summary here is informative, and at WP:DRN, would be a data point. He probably needs to explain why this was tagged as an unreliable source, but that is something for the talk page, which I see you have attempted. Usually WP:DRN is the next step. I will say this: if he is correct that Davis never used the 200,000 number, then it is SYNTH to insert it in that way. You can say that he said the commonly touted numbers were conservative, and that the commonly touted number is 200k (assuming you have sources) but you can't connect the dots yourself. I know that common sense says that he was probably talking about the 200k, and you, me and FPaS know that, but it would still be synthesis of sources which isn't allowed. Is it being "technical" about the policy? Yes, but it is the correct and proper interpretation, even if inconvenient.

You might not want to hear this, but I think you are better off working with him to create a paragraph that incorporates the information, even if it isn't the exact wording you would choose, and take on the "unreliable source" issue for that one book. Maybe it is valid, maybe it isn't, I don't know. Anyway, from what I can see, he has some valid points. The rest of the points, I don't know, but at least some of them are valid. I think you are also trying to do the right thing here, it is just a difference of interpretation of policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And now he has stalked me to here and this shit needs to stop. You are an uninvolved admin, enact an IBAN under the discretionary sanctions. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't do that for a couple of reasons, first is that I'm really slammed at work and just don't have the time to research and follow up properly. I don't think I've ever used discretionary sanctions before, ever. It's a big stick I'm not prone to swing. I'm also not a fan of IBANs. I was going to suggest AN or ANI, but that would probably be a really bad idea. I won't labor the point, you already know why. And frankly, I'm as ignorant of the subject matter as a soul could be. Looking at his edit there and elsewhere, I see what looks like normal editing process. You and he disagree on the content, like any two other editors, and you both edit material on SE Asia. I see he removed [12], which I'm not sure why it was there to begin with. Not sure about the rest. But regardless, I really don't have the time to properly investigate. Maybe I'm naive here, but I don't see why you can't just use the regular editing process, talk page, then DRN. I don't think anyone is going to consider an IBAN until it is shown that those processes aren't working. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It no longer matters, he has dragged me to AE, no doubt I will be topic banned. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Image attribution/confusing source

You uploaded File:Tanninglampend.jpg as source=self-made and claiming ownership of it for purposes of license-release, but there's an in-image text caption asserting copyright by tanningbeds.org. Is that website yours? The license itself matches, so it's not a license violation; I'm just looking for clarification on who actually owns the license in order to make the release. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it is, or was rather, as I've retired that blog. I think I still have that lamp end around here somewhere, I use it for training sometimes. Rick and I are partners in a couple of businesses. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying. "Parts of things" are great teaching tools! DMacks (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Oglesruins

Back from there ban doing the exact same thing see here. Time to get rid of this editor that is simply not here!! -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Done All reasonable chances have been spent. I've indef blocked until he can convince another admin that he will stop warring. This is his 4th block this year for the exact same problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Extension of full-protection

Hi Dennis,

Just a quicky, if I may. Darkwind increased the protection level of Conchita Wurst from semi to full for a short period of time, due to a headache of a dispute on the article's talk page over gender recognition. Darkwind said that if the dispute hadn't resolved or shown signs of being resolved soon, that the protection would require to be extended until such resolution was attained. He did state that we could contact himself or any admin if an extension was required. As the dispute still hasn't been resolved and a RfC has been opened, would it be possible if you were to kindly extend the protection expiry? Much regards, Wes Mᴥuse 13:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added three days from today. Some progress is being made and I agree it would be best to leave it protected for now. If it needs to be unprotected, any admin can do so without asking my opinion, and you can point them here. That said, the lead photo is a very confusing one. I was showing my wife the very same photo last night, after I saw someone post it on another editor's talk page. He had a very good makeup expert do that, no doubt, and he/she has beautiful eyes, then the beard kind of shocks the eyes. His/her photo is a almost surreal, like a collage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for extending the protection, much appreciated. The photo is definitely one that stands out and shocks the eyes into thinking "huh!?" lol. It cracks me up though that people on the talk page are discussing the debate as if this is the first ever drag queen in the entire universe. If they applied a bit of common logic and checked other article's such as Lily Savage and Paul O'Grady, they'd find prime examples on how Wikipedia handles "split persona" biographies. But hey, I suppose not everyone can be as cleverly intellectual, like you and I. I am teetering on using my sandbox to write up a test on how the article would look if commonsensical was applied and both gender contexts were to be used, but I'm not sure if it would be appreciated by the majority. Wes Mᴥuse 14:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• RuPaul is still the king of queens, in my eyes (and settled the nomenclature handily). I've seen Frank Marino perform in his hit show An Evening at La Cage at the Riviera in Vegas many years ago, and he puts on a world class show and pulls off either gender with grace and beauty. Of course, most people around here are too young to remember Milton Berle, who took the vaudeville style of drag and brought it to TV for the first time. Yeah, being a drag queen isn't even remotely new. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem user

Hi, Dennis,
This is an odd one. My password is "duckman" is posting sock notices on a lot of newly created user accounts (see their contributions). I don't know what the purpose of this is, but they have done a lot of damage for the 7 minutes they've been active. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like Floq nailed them, and some others have reverted at least some of it. This is why we need to work you up to admin soon. Can't be that hard, they even let me do it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hah! Maybe one day. ;-) But I just happen to be on the site a lot today. I think it is pretty amazing that they were only active for 11 minutes before they were blocked. That's fast-acting admin corps! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the tricks is to patrol the User Creation Log [13]. Something most people wouldn't think to do unless they had a shiny block button :) I do that from time to time when hunting dumb socks who use variations of their name: Billybob21, Billybob22, Billybob23, etc. Just block them as fast as I can refresh the page. I've blocked a few obvious socks before a minute passed, before they could edit once. I also use a script that automatically shows me if someone is blocked just by looking at their linked name on any page. Anyone can install that, it, although non-admin seldom find a need. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's cool. I found a script that lists the user's rights, when they registered the account, how long it's been since their last edit and how many edits they have on their user page and user talk page and that is very convenient. I'm sure there is a huge world of scripts doing clever things but it's hard for a nonprogrammer to judge them by looking at the code. It does remind me that I can tell who is an administrator by going to their user pages but most new user have no way of knowing unless the admin has chosen to post a userbox stating their status. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, go add importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js'); in your custom.js file, then go look at a page with blocked users (ANI is handy for that...) and see what it does with their names. Then mouse over their names. The other script I already have, a must for admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA and AbigailAbernathy's RfA

I finally figured out what Shanen's comment related to. Shanen edited the Michael J. Fisher article with a warning about a 419 scam using Mr. Fisher's name. AbigailAbernathy reverted the scam warning, as it was clearly inappropriate for the lead of the article (or anywhere else, for that matter). I can only assume that from there, Shanen assumed that AA was either herself a professional scammer, or supporting the Wiki's horrific policy of censorship and suppression of such warnings. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh....

This is getting tiresome.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 05:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed his comment again. Everyone has a right to an opinion, even opinions that I don't like, but he's not expressing an opinion on the issue at hand. He's using this RfA as a place to vent his general frustration at Wikipedia policies. That, and a slight spillover of his frustration at Abigail reverting him. In neither case is it appropriate for the venue at hand. On the one hand, I want to ask for him to be blocked. On the other hand, that would likely only encourage him to edit as an IP vandal, whereas under his username we can at least keep track of what changes he's making. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, not really sure what his deal is, but that was classic soapboxing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Grands canned biscuits.jpg

It was tagged as a wrong license, because it's packaging artwork, which has a seperate copyright.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Sfan00 IMG - What license are you saying it must be released under? I don't see any copyright licenses here listed that mention "packaging" in the title, so this isn't particularly helpful in describing the problem. [14] Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Try {{Non-free product cover}}. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Before I am blocked, just wanted to say thanks, you have always been fair, and are one of the few decent admins on here. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well shoot. I know you get frustrated, and I've tried to point you toward methods working with people, especially those you disagree with, but I feel like I've failed to communicate that properly. I don't want to see you blocked, you have a lot to offer in the way of balance here but you get frustrated and sometimes that frustration gets the better of you. Hoping we don't see it come to that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I be boned. TBH I was pissed anyway, just getting shorter of temper all the time, collaborative does not suit me I reckon Again, thanks for being a decent, and stand up guy. I may pop back as an IP once the block has expired, you will of course know me, a lot of XXXX Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration in general doesn't suit me either, you have to be careful in choosing who to collaborate with. But when you get it right it can be a pretty rewarding experience. This Wikipedia notion that we all have to get on is frankly ridiculous; I could give you a long list of editors I will have nothing to do with. Eric Corbett 22:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was one of them , Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I really wish I could tell you who was at the top of my list, but obviously I can't. Eric Corbett 22:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Could have sworn I had oissed you off, I have most people on here, now I know you live in the UK, so, a crate of whatever you drink, if you bring this one up to FA. Or a keg, although I am up in the Isle of Skye in a month or so, can get you some decent scotch if that is preferable? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you did once, but I have rather a short memory for that kind of thing. Eric Corbett 00:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You did not put yourself on my list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

reading, waiting, then judging
Thank you for living what you advise, "reading it, waiting 24 hours, then judging", for defending editors who are hurt, for practising mentorship, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

-Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 124th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize. I was short then ;) - today's is more eloquent, but you may even prefer it short, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• You're a peach, Gerda. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• You mean because of today's? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

ps: 15th of the month, 6 recipients missed. Master of editor retention, what can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I mean you are a peach every day :) Not sure what to do, I'm neck deep in drama over admin emails right now. Work is so busy, I kind of have to pick my battles one at a time. We have lost several good people lately, and a few have just disappeared without any notice. Not sure what to make of that yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ;) - Did you see the top of my talk, I list just eight, know of many more. I was moved by a comment I received yesterday, - follow to the romantic discussion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

3 meatpuppet IP's making disruptive edits. One of the IPs you blocked recently

3 IP's keep changing wording in opposition to the quotes provided in the footnotes. They keep changing "Pabongka fashioned Shugden as a violent protector of the Gelug school, who is employed against other traditions" to "Pabongka fashioned Shugden as a pure protector of the Gelug school, who is employed against delusions". You blocked the first one for 2 weeks recently.

• 68.81.21.243
• 80.252.70.194
• 82.71.13.29Heicth (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A new wikilowe message

	A Good luch Charm
	For you............... Hafspajen (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about recent ANI

Hi Dennis,

I noticed that you weighed in on my ANI recently ("Questionable comments by John Valeron"). It was my first, so I am wondering if you could help me understand what happened. I can't tell if it was closed, or if anything was decided before it was archived. Thanks in advance, petrarchan47tc 08:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• It was automatically archived due to inactivity, which is common. That doesn't mean John is "innocent", it means the community is split as to a solution. If he were wise, it would be taken as a strong warning, and pull back on the aggressive behavior. I don't expect this, but while the ANI didn't produce a particular sanction, it did document that the community takes issue with his behavior, and the threshold to block is a little lower now. You have to understand that at Wikipedia, we can't police simple civility or singular arguments very well. I would argue that we screw it up when we try. We can take action over problematic patterns of behavior, and the fact that we keep a history of every page makes this easier to do, it just takes more time. If John gets the message, then this is all moot. If not, I would expect a series of escalating blocks eventually. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A most helpful response. That was a strange experience, the ANI. Thanks for taking the time to clear things up for me. :) petrarchan47tc 03:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your principled comments here and elsewhere. You are making the case for restraint and common sense much more eloquently than I could, and I hope people will listen. 28bytes (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Amen to that. Wikipedia should not collude with government agencies to suppress or out individual editors. —Neotarf (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks, but we need everyone to join the discussion. I think sometimes people forget that Wikipedia is just a website. A great one in many ways, but still just a website. We can't be threatening the livelihoods of our editors, and certaintly we can't allow single admin (or non) to do so on a whim. If the WMF Legal or Arb wants to as a body, that is one thing, but having random admin threaten users, even abusive editors, is just asking for a lawsuit. More important, you don't remove the food from a man's wife and children's mouths just because he is being a dick. I don't see how anyone with a sense of morals or ethics can find that acceptable. If we are collectively as clever as we pretend to be, surely we can find better solutions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to support that position, if you please point out where it needs more voices, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I will likely notify here. And I've added two sentences to the top of my user page that I think policy already supports, but if needed, can be ruled on by Arb or added to policy. It really shouldn't take so much fussing and fighting, but this is one of those battles I won't be walking away from. The very idea that it is acceptable to do this is as offensive as anything I've seen as of late. It isn't about any particular editors, it is about all editors. Opening up the floodgates like this will have a chilling effect on editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think even ArbCom should be in the employer-notifying business. If an individual is truly harassing editors to the degree that something like that needs to be pursued, the WMF should be handling it. 28bytes (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree, but I pick my battles, and at the very least, the decision shouldn't be made by an individual. I think that Arb would be loathe to make that threat except in the most extreme of situations, and at least they would debate it or maybe push it up to WMF Legal. An individual may be quick to issue the threat the first time a banned user starts socking and they know the employer. Frankly, I can think of a few admin that would be way too quick to use that "tool" if it were condoned. This also can border on WP:OUTING in some situations. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Pick your battles. Once known for battleground behaviour, I picked my next, the blanking of user pages of banned editors, but slowly so. How does it help our readers not to know more about a user wrote an article, such as Remember not, Lord, our offences, other than that he is banned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Why editors shouldn't threaten the jobs of other editors

Humor me for a moment. Let us say that I, Dennis Brown, went maverick tomorrow and became belligerent, was blocked, then I socked, was banned, and I continued to sock, protesting my ban. It happens. I currently edit from work and home, but I choose to restrict my sockpuppetry to my home. I have become persona non grata. Some might argue this is already true in some circles but again, humor me in this unlikely yet practically possible scenario.

During this process, a few CUs have been run (understandably) and they find my home IP address but they also find my work IP address which I am currently using to write this. (CUs go back around 3 months) It is static and entirely traceable to my place of employment. You couldn't mistake it as anything other than a work IP, trust me. 5 minutes later, you could be on the phone with my office very easily in my case. I never socked from work, but it is still fair game to the individual CU, who wants to "inform" me that they "don't want to have to report me to my ISP and my work ISP". When someone makes a threat (especially admin), we should and do assume they have the capability to carry it out.

As a group, the WMF Legal team would be wise enough to not make that threat, knowing it is not affiliated with abuse. ArbCom might raise the issue, but it would be shot down by members noting that the work IP was never used for abuse. I've probably edited by accident with that IP (getting logged out, reverting vandalism, I don't always log in for small things) and never bothered to ask for suppression, so it is possible that any editor could figure out my place of employment and make that threat. So they do, and get me fired, even though I've never done anything wrong from that location. That is just ONE of many scenarios that exposes the Foundation to a lawsuit by allowing this kind of threat, and by Jimmy and others actually ENDORSING this kind of threat. There is no review, no check and balance, just one person making an unwise decision that other members of the community has said is "ok" during a fit of rage against some other banned editor. One that would force me into unemployment. As the sole source of income in my household, it would have ramifications beyond these pages and affect real people who have never edited Wikipedia at all. All because I was a pain in the ass on a website. Even if I used my work IP, is it ethical to take away my source of income over a couple of weeks worth of rant?

My insistence in driving this point isn't about AGK or Kumioko, neither of which I dislike or have any real history with. This scenario is NOT the same as that scenario, except in how we allow anyone to make a threat of a job. It is about accountability as a human, of morals and ethics, and the understanding that Wikipedia is an important website, but not more important than real live humans. This is why threats like this shouldn't be used at all, but if they are, they should only be issued by the Foundation, or if they must, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, where the threat can at least be debated first. Unquestionably, admin should block, rangeblock, WP:DENY and use the tools that the community granted us, but I don't remember being granted the power to threaten or take a job at my RFA.

It is my hope that the editors at Wikipedia give this a long, hard look, think about the ramifications to real human beings. I'm not against blocking socks (I've done it over 1000 times myself) nor reporting abuse to an ISP (risking only their internet access). I'm not looking to punish anyone who has previously threatened someone's job. I'm looking to get people to realize that this is not something we want to be affiliated with, to see that a common sense reading of existing policy says this is not acceptable. Do you want to be responsible for causing an individual to lose the ability to feed his wife and kids just because he was a dick on a website? Isn't that way out of proportion to the offense? Are individual editors/admin/CUs smart enough and/or ethical enough to make the decision as when it is appropriate, without any input from anyone else? I would emphatically say "no". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Response

I want to preface what I have to say by stating that while I would propose filing abuse reports (and have), I would never act unilaterally in sending one. Now, what you've presented above is is very specific situation. Have you thought about these things?

• No CU is necessary for identifying sock IP's. Self-identifying as a sock is not uncommon. The CU angle is somewhat of a red-herring.
• Not everyone has the same experience as reading ISP info as you. Plenty of non-technical people would just see the abuse@ address and fire off an email.
• These days, cutting off home access to the Internet may very well cut off their ability to do their job.
• "We won't file an abuse report if you sock only from work" seems to invite gaming the system.

If we come up with a new policy this is just food for thought. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• • CU would certainly be run in this scenario, there is no question, so it absolutely applies. CU is run way more often than regular editors realize. Way more. They aren't accountable to regular editors in this, only Arb and the audit sub committee or some such group that we regular editors don't get involved with. I didn't say we wouldn't not file a report if you sock from work, I said you can't intentionally threaten someone with reporting them to their employer. If you know it is their job, then no, you shouldn't file the report and instead email Arb about it. If you file a report and didn't realize, then that isn't intentional. The scenario I have presented is valid. It would allow any editor to go after my job, to get me fired, with the blessing of Jimmy and some in the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this as well, and feel that the whole "not a big deal" mantra encourages this sort of behavior. Since many of those positions with higher levels of access (power, if you will) aren't really accountable to anyone (in a meaningful sense) it can encourage this kind of behavior. Combine that with the closed society group behavior that tends to accompany Wikipedia, and you have the makings of a serious issue. A VERY serious issue. Intothatdarkness 15:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not against blocking socks (I've done it over 1000 times myself) nor reporting abuse to an ISP (risking only their internet access).

So, Dennis, you are not against making an abuse report to an ISP. It was my assumption, reading the text of an email AGK reportedly sent Kumioko, that an abuse report was going to be made to the ISP and a warning about possible consequences of this happening. I'll have to read it again but I didn't have the impression that AGK or any Wikipedia editor or admin would be contacting Kumioko's employer. It would happen when the ISP followed up on the abuse report. If my reading is correct, than this is what would happen with any abuse report that was filed about any long-time abuser, not just Kumioko. The difference was that AGK personally entered the process by sending an email outlining probable consequences of the report instead of simply filing the abuse report. So, the debate would be whether it was appropriate to send a personal email to an abuser that could either be read as a warning or a threat.

All of this still doesn't address my questions: Where on Wikipedia policy pages does it outline a) the conditions that exist for an abuse report to be sent, b) who can send an abuse report to an ISP and c) a log of abuse reports that have been sent (to avoid duplicate messages and to allow transparency). I've posted these questions several times but have not received an answer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good question, but I don't know what policy regulations that, if any. I have filed abuse reports to ISPs in matters unrelated to Wikipedia, so it isn't hard, but the community seems ok with that. Once a job is threatened via a threat to contact your employer (ie: DOD or any other employer) it is a different matter. Now, you aren't just threatening to get someone's internet access removed, you are threatening their livelihood. Not everyone lives in their mom's basement, some editors have a wife and kids, and we MUST treat every editor equally, so you are threatening to create a risk for those other family members. Random editors shouldn't be doing this. This is worse than a legal threat, in my opinion, and seems to be covered by Wikipedia:Harrassment#Threats as "harm to another person" (and perhaps elsewhere). Losing your ISP may not be harm, but losing your job is. Individuals, no matter how clever, should not be doing this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is an issue exclusively for heterosexual married males who have procreated. Everyone's livelihood is vital to them, whether they have dependents or not. (And some may have elderly parents at home.) There may be additional issues for those who are editing from one of these countries as well. Should you rat someone out to their ISP if they are editing from a VPN in China? From a bamboo hut in Myanmar? What if they are editing under the nose of the religious police in Saudi Arabia? Must the terms of service be upheld, at all costs? And who interprets whether they have been violated.

I would think there would be legal implications as well, and can understand why the foundation might prefer that admins take the responsibility on themselves. In all fairness though, Jimmy's statement today seems to take some of the legal burden off the admins and encourage them to take independent action. And the WMF in the past has been willing to pick up litigation costs for individual editors. There was an admin at WikiVoyage, I forget the name now, lucky he didn't lose his house.

In other venues, Kumioko has indicated that his employer has been contacted, linking his user name with his real name. —Neotarf (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So basically he was outed, an unforeseen consequence. Or perhaps it was foreseen and they just didn't care, I really have no idea. I have no idea who actually contacted his employer either, so there isn't much I can say on that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been said elsewhere that some of the arbs know him, or have met him, so maybe that was a foregone conclusion. —Neotarf (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, let me play advocatus diaboli here. What about in the case of User talk:138.162.8.58 – a DOD IP with a long history of vandalism? And, yes, the IP was clearly used (later) by Kumioko, but I would be skeptical the vandalism was done by him... But Kumioko aside – in this case (for the earlier vandalism edits from, say, the 2009–10 levels or worse) the disruption was done from a work IP. Do you have an issue with an abuse report in those circumstances? Or, since it's a DOD IP, would you still view that as a WMF action?

And a belated welcome back – thought I'd done that earlier, but I see I forgot. Mojoworker (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not really devilish in the least. The key isn't "should we warn or notify", it is "who should be doing it". The bar for getting the admin bit is pretty low, and admin aren't vetted for stuff like this. Non-admin aren't vetted at all. Most of what admin do can be undone and the community has processes in place to deal with this. You can undelete an article, unblock an editor, unprotect a page. Contacting an editor's employer can't be "undone" by anyone. This is exactly why it should be done by WMF Legal (a bunch of lawyers who are paid to understand the ramifications) or at a minimum by ArbCom as a committee, where they have their own check and balance system that works fine and is used before an action is taken. The real danger is when any individual does this of their own volition, particularly if they bestowed with artificial "authority" by virtue of being an admin or CU. This is why I say that existing policy on threats should be interpreted as not allowing this, when you run it through the filter of "common sense".
• The problem is, the hatred and/or frustration with Kumioko is clouding people's vision as to the big picture. They say "it is ok this one time", but that must mean it is ok every time, per policy. "How hated is someone" isn't an objective measuring stick for us to gauge against the next time someone threatens an editor. I'm more worried about the next person than I am with Kumioko, who I think can take care of himself. Same with AGK. I've never had a bad thing to say about him, it just so happens he is the one that made the threat. My stand would be the same if you made the threat instead of AGK. My concerns shouldn't be seen as an endorsement for Kumioko nor a personal condemnation of AGK, although some will mistakenly see it as such. To me, it is a matter of principle only. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So what's wrong with WP:DENY and WP:RBI? Are these not time-tested policies? Do they not work? So why are normally attentive people suddenly getting all IAR? What is the justification? —Neotarf (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)