Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Absurd comment

Hi Dennis, this comment is absurd. This list is not going to help you to administrate. In no way this list is going to help you with reverts or with anything else for that matter. I agree that it is "a shame list", except it is a shame of anybody who has ever supported a ban of a person who was not even allowed to defend himself, it is a shame of anybody who supported a ban while involved, it is a shame of anybody who lied in ban discussions, knowing quite well the discussed person is not allowed to respond those lies, and you know what it is a shame of anybody who has seen this kind of Kangaroo courts and said nothing to stop them, which means this list is your shame too, Mr. Brown. One more thing, this list will not help you with your administration, but treating people with respect and dignity will. 188.132.226.2 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • What about the people who really were jerks and got banned, which is most of them? Anyway, purely rhetorical question, you are welcome to your opinion, as I am mine, although opining on that page is more appropriate than on my talk page. Dennis 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Even "jerks" deserve a fair trial, and the real jerks are users who deny that essential right to human beings. 1.234.20.21 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No one "deserves" a "fair trial" on a private website that has specific Terms of Service Rules that everyone agrees to when they edit here, but, in fact, everyone banned by Arbcom or the community has had a public airing of the claims made against them, and they have had the opportunity to respond, which is more than sufficient to be considered to be "fair". The banned editors who run around talking about how their banning was a terribly miscarriage of justice are, frankly, full of it, and the vast majority do not deserve our sympathy. BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
" No one "deserves" a "fair trial" on a private website"... It's probably true, but no decent person would ever support a ban of a person who is not allowed to say a word in his defense, and no decent person would support a ban, while involved.
" but, in fact, everyone banned by Arbcom or the community has had a public airing of the claims made against them, and they have had the opportunity to respond" I would never understand what is a purpose of lying, if it is so easy to demonstrate one is lying.
"and the vast majority do not deserve our sympathy." Do you believe somebody gives a damn about your sympathy, Beyond My Ken? My post was not about "sympathy". It was about sanity, your sanity, wikipedians. Even your leader Mr. Wales said on Wikimania that people should not be shamed, not should be screamed at. Treat people with respect and with dignity, and I assure you, you would be much more effective than by maintaining the shameful list. 107.178.219.146 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The editors who were banned by and large shat in the hallways, pissed in the elevators and covered the walls with ugly grafitti. They deserve to be shamed, regardless of the opinion of Jimbo Wales. (He may have laid the foundation, but we have raised the building with our hard work and perseverance, not him.) Any respect those folks were due dissipated when they chose to take the actions they did. The community and ArbCom responded, and it is now the task of those banned editors to show us that they are deserving of a second chance, where they can earn again the respect which comes from working together with the community to help build an encyclopedia. Right now, that is all we owe them, a fair chance to show they have changed, and nothing more. In the meantime, let them remain shamed and without respect, their approbation is well-earned.

Outlaws are fun to root for in movies and books and television programs, but they're not much fun when they ransack your home and disrupt your life. BMK (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, many banned editors appear to have no sense of shame whatsoever. In fact, more than that, if their actions had taken place physically in the real world, instead of online, they would soon be typed as sociopaths: unconcerned about right and wrong, intensely egocentric, willing to lie and cheat whenever it serves them, disregarding the feelings and concerns of others, unable to learn to correct their behavior from negative consequences, unable to control their aggressiveness.

Sounds awfully familiar to me, any number of banned editors fit the bill. BMK (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


What Ken said. And no where in my comment did I support an editor not being able to speak for themselves. My comment was simple: If we are going to have a banned list (which makes sense to some of us admin and non-admin alike that mop up), it should only contain the name and a link to the decision, proving they really are banned. No opining, no listing their "crimes", just the name and link. I don't have a problem limiting it even more if it is usable. Reading more into my simple comment than what I've said is dishonest. Dennis 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis, I've never said you supported editors not being able to speak for themselves, but there are people who were not allowed to speak for themselves listed in the list, and you're arguing for keeping this list, which means that you see nothing wrong with the fact that at least some people listed there were mobbed out with no opportunity to speak for themselves, and it was done by involved users.
  • "What Ken said"... And what Ken said? Ken said that many banned editors are sociopaths, that "The editors who were banned by and large shat in the hallways, pissed in the elevators and covered the walls with ugly grafitti. They deserve to be shamed" and so on, and so on. Are you ready to put your signature under that rant, Dennis? Really? If so, I am probably loosing my time here.
  • I'd like to repeat the points I tried to make one more time please:
    1. The only purpose of this list, as you and Ken correctly noticed, is to shame people, which in at least some situations, means to bully them.
    2. You say this list helps you to administrate, and once again I repeat it is an absurd statement. You do not need to know who is banned and who is not to make reverts, just revert vandalism, revert bad contributions, and let good ones to stay, as you,wikipedians are saying: "look at contributions, not at a contributor".
    3. Treat people with respect and with dignity, and I assure you, you'd be much more effective than with shaming and bullying them. 180.183.81.85 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I've run out of AGF with you, I'll just assume now that you are a banned user. BMK (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • When you tell me I will be effective if I don't shame and bully people, you are implying that is my modus operandi. You seem to be very busy telling me what I think and you haven't asked a single question, which tells me I'm wasting my time trying to communicate with you. For future reference, it is easier to persuade someone if you first try to get to understand their perspective. Dennis 12:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "you haven't asked a single question" is incorrect. I asked you at least one question, in particular I asked you this question: "Are you ready to put your signature under that rant, Dennis? Really?"
  • I don't tell what you think. You told it yourself. You told that this list helps you to administrate, and I told you it is not. Okay, let me ask you one more very specific question please: Would you please describe a few recent examples, in which this list helped you to administrate? Thanks. 103.245.88.248 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Nice to see you around, Dennis - you've been missed. Your comment was fair, and sensible. If there is a utility for such a list, which I can see there is, it should be that - a utility, with the bare essentials, and a link to find out more if necessary. That would be an improvement, and show some respect. A list, not a list of little opinion-piece essays. Good call, and I'm sorry for those who don't see these attempts to improve for what they are. Never any shades of grey, here, sadly... Don't be a stranger. Begoon talk 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't get too used to it, I'm just gnoming a tiny bit, and got involved in that ban discussion solely because I felt that the middle ground made sense and no one was presenting that perspective. I'm sure I will regret it soon enough. The real world has been keeping me quite busy (in a good way) and I haven't had time to miss enwp, to be honest. Dennis 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I hope you do stay around a bit. On the list, I exercised my right to change my mind, after some thought, and voted delete, which will probably make little difference to the outcome. Whatever I think about it, in the end, though, I'm sorry your attempt to put forward what you thought was the best solution to address all concerns was met so negatively. I suspect that is how it will close anyway, as "trim", and that will be an improvement. Improvements are good. Cheers. Begoon talk 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the beauty of the consensus system, it doesn't require we always agree. On the important stuff, like the grave dancing portions of the list, we do agree, which matters most. And I understand the perspective of those that want it deleted. It isn't a matter of me thinking that choice is wrong, I just think trimming it down instead is a more workable choice. Just my opinion. Hopefully others will see the wisdom in at least trimming it down to a useful minimum, instead of what it is, a spiteful list. Those on the list that use their real names can always ask Arb to vanish, which will remove their real name from the list. It only takes one email. Dennis 13:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I wish it was that easy. A certain Arb ran for 'crat recently specifically because it wasn't and now that renames have gone global, again it will not be. The fact is that removing your name (especially your real name) from that list is nigh on impossible. WormTT(talk) 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Then that is a separate problem. It used to be fairly easy. Dennis 13:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally random comment: Is it just me or did the anonymous contributor use multiple IP addresses to engage in this discussion? Does this imply anything? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Cordial editors

Regarding this comment: I've seen you express this sentiment before, and while I don't disagree with the idea of showing tolerance towards others in recognition of their good qualities, I think you are underselling the value of those who make excellent contributions while collaborating calmly with others. I know you realize from the Editor of the Week initiative that there is lots of good work that just gets quietly done, so I'm a bit dismayed to see you make statements that appear to dismiss the abilities of those who strive to remain cordial. I hope that you will bear this in mind in future, and not offer an inaccurate view of collaborative editors not writing good content. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is that you're discussing a rather subtle social interaction – collaborations in article writing – in black-and-white terms. There is absolutely nobody, you included, who is always cordial or always aggressive. Eric Corbett 16:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Eric. That's the major flaw in a lot of the civility-based discussions. I've just read that diff, though. It looks like some might be consider me to be an "artistic type". Good to see you dabbling again, Dennis. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I think Dennis is unintentionally giving the impression that there is a black-and-white choice: manage with rude editors who do excellent work, or manage with polite editors who don't. I know he doesn't believe this, and so I feel it to be unfortunate that he is conveying this message. isaacl (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just re-read it and, really, I can't see where Dennis is saying the issue is black/white. In fact, the meritocracy point from which he starts is clearly suggesting a grading. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I may be carrying with me the context of other places where Dennis has opined on this matter, and probably, unfairly, similar utterances by others. When he said that he'd rather have a "bunch of sometimes rude people churning out tons of articles than a bunch of polite people who mainly hang out at admin boards and policy pages," it felt like a false dichotomy was being presented. As I realize he doesn't truly feel these are the two choices available, I was offering him some feedback on how his comments can be perceived. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fair point: some may read it as black/white. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Then they'd be wrong. The logical error here is that these two groups – polite vs. sometimes rude – are immutable, whereas nobody is always one or the other. Eric Corbett 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
While I agree the position that great content contributors should be given leeway in terms of civility is a position that a reasonable person can take, it has not gained consensus. The idea has been repeatedly rejected by the community and consensus based policy makes no such exception. I would oppose such a change if it were proposed again, but I can see why people would think that way.
Until such a time as consensus changes in our policy the idea that people should be given leeway because of their content contributions is contrary to community expectations. If the community wanted that then they would support a change in policy. It may not be black and white, but the community has weighed in on it several times. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask that you please defer this point of discussion to another thread? I'd prefer to keep my inquiry to Dennis focused on avoiding giving a false black-and-white impression. Thanks. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I thought it was on topic. I will just move on to another discussion. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Eric and Sitush got my point exactly as intended. Very few people would fit the two extremes I described, but I can't describe the 1 million steps in between, so I describe two common but polar opposite types of editor. That said, many editors DO resemble the neighborhood of one of those two extremes, which is why the paradigm works. Not all editors fit in this paradigm, but enough do for it to make sense. And Chillum, I don't think you really could put this into policy in a static way nor would I even try. Instead you make sure policy is flexible enough to accommodate this kind of flexibility by admin, as determined by the consensus developed around that one event. We cut a little extra slack for editors all the time for singular slip ups; experienced writers, guys/gals with high edit counts, and (unfortunately) admin/crat/arb/etc, by simple virtue of those metrics and the relative merits of their work. And by "we", I mean the community as a whole, not just individual persons. And I never said it was fair, only what I think is a reasonable perspective if your goal is to build an encyclopedia, versus manage a social networking site. Even in the real world, when someone proposes something they claim is "fair", odds are it favors them. As always, I shoot for reasonable solutions rather than justice or fairness. Like beauty, "fair" is in the eye of the beholder. Dennis 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of a strong support-base (because of my own conduct & my own stupidity) helped lead me to & acquire a site-ban. But, that's my problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There is a lot of unfairness in the system, no doubt, and lots of room for improvement. The problem is, there is no way to make the system 100% fair unless it was so restrictive and onerous that no one wanted to be here. The best we can do is try to be "fair" (whatever that means for a given situation) while knowing we can't see inside the hearts and minds of others. Hell, we can't even see the expression on their face, and in most cases, not even know their real name. And yes, in many ways it is a popularity thing. We can't stop humans from being humans, however. Dennis 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I know it, better then most :) GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
"We can't stop humans from being humans, however." Have you shared that insight with Jimbo Wales and his army of civility warriors? The problem I have with all of this is that almost nobody fits neatly and consistently into the two categories of demon or angel. I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused of being unable to edit collaboratively, a charge that is simply ridiculous as you know from your own personal experience. Yet there are a small number of editors I point blank refuse to collaborate with on anything, as they make my flesh creep. I don't go around complaining about them though, or demanding that they're shown the door, I simply ignore them. Eric Corbett 20:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't please all of the people all of the time. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
And neither should you try. You never know the measure of a person until you've disagreed with them; "truth springs from argument among friends". Eric Corbett 20:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think he has been an active "editor" here recently if ever, and he's never hasn't had the privilege of being a "run of the mill editor" without the burden of celebrity. As such, his view is often through rose colored glasses. That's not to say his opinion has no merit, as he is sharper than average and has some credible experience, but in these matters, his opinion have exactly as much merit as any other random experienced editor's and none more, at least on my talk page. His opinions shouldn't be held up as an example for others to follow as he quit leading many years ago. Unfortunately, a small but loud minority will gladly drink the Kool-Aid without asking questions. He does get the extremes of opinion on his page, but most of us live somewhere in the center, making his talk page pretty useless for gauging consensus of anything. Dennis 20:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Particularly when he's banned so many editors from commenting at his talk page. Not much of an open-door policy that. Eric Corbett 21:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
He has a peculiar access policy also. He seems generally happy to tolerate those who have been sitebanned, presumably because he sees himself as some sort of last resort (he isn't), yet he tells regulars that they're not welcome unless they act with "more honor" and suchlike. That really will leave him with a skewed picture. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside those who are not proceeding with good faith, one of the more frustrating things to witness on Wikipedia is how some well-intentioned persons don't seem to appreciate that the same interpersonal problems seen in the real world inevitably show up in any sufficiently large online gathering. (Clay Shirky described this well in his talk "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy".) A lot of needless head banging against the wall comes from unrealistic expectations that the Wikipedia community will somehow avoid the dissension seen in everyday life. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
When I first became an admin 2.5 years ago, I was much more idealistic, perhaps to the point of expecting too much from individuals. I've mellowed and learned to expect flaws, understanding that people aren't going to be on the "best behavior" here, even if they should be more or less civil most of the time. I've also learned that somethings mild conflict is actually productive, just like it can be in the real world. You argue it out in good faith, even if blunt, and you find a compromise. I would rather have someone say "Dennis, you are being a dick about this" than give me some passive-aggressive backhanded compliment "Well, for a non-expert, I guess you have a basic grasp of the ideas". Technically, the first is "incivil" and the second one isn't, but he first comment would make me chuckle, the second comment would make me want to thump them. Dennis 23:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Beyond just how disagreement is expressed, some editors seem to be unprepared to face any dissension in the first place, and don't appreciate how to marshall their discussion to debate each others points. As we've discussed elsewhere, I don't think the typical redundant structure of Wikipedia discussions is very helpful in producing productive dialogue, unfortunately. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Some don't know how to argue or debate, you are correct. The question is, how do we deal with it? Some of them simply won't be able to adjust to Wikipedia as a hobby and need to do something else, regardless of their skills. Others will learn with time, and we should be patient. Some are the opposite and just love to argue for the sake of arguing, and the redundancy you speak of can be used by them to insure nothing ever gets done because of constant stalemates. Those are typically the most destructive of all, and those kinds of editors are NOT the rude ones, they are the pleasant types that wear you down with Wikilawyering. This is why I say "civility", as it is simplistically defined, is really not as big of a concern and other more passive aggressive methods used by some people. Like bludgeoning, via raising the same discussion over and over after it is clear there isn't a consensus for their ideas. You see that on policy talk pages, name changes and AFDs. Trust me, I would rather be called any name in the book than deal with these types. Calling me an "ass" might be rude (and sometimes appropriate), but I can always ignore it. Bludgeoning the system is parasitic and actual wastes 100x the resources of the community, and can't be ignored since it is within process. Dennis 00:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think a moderator should reboot the discussion by summarizing it, with itemized pros and cons, for example, so attempts to rediscuss a point can be curtailed by pointing to the summary. The moderator can pose new questions to relaunch the discussion that build upon the progress to date.
Regarding redundancy being used to ensure nothing gets done, I have to smile a bit, since you've now twice replied to me about your willingness to be called a name. I don't think you're wikilawyering or bludgeoning; I imagine it's just something that flowed out of your stream of consciousness. So even with the best of intentions it happens; with two persons it's not a big deal, but multiply that by ten or fifty and the conversation becomes very difficult to follow. isaacl (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Try being an admin for a week, you will be called names :) I agree that often a moderator is the best solution, but seldom does that mod need to be an admin. I did more moderating before I got the bit than after. In fact, the bit can get in the way when moderating. Non-admin make the best moderators most of the time because there isn't the perception of "authority", only helpfulness. The only time the admin bit is really needed for moderating is in a cat fight of a discussion, where people know they can get blocked if they keep calling names. Dennis 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, as I didn't say anything about a moderator having to be an admin. Although usually ignoring name-calling is the best approach, unfortunately at times a combative editor combines name-calling with swamping a discussion thread. In the real world, someone trying that would get shouted down; in the digital world, though, you can't keep someone from typing in lengthy replies that obscure the other participants. isaacl (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't read too much into what I'm saying, it was just an observation. Anyone can moderate, few are willing. Dennis 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, because when the involved parties aren't amenable to compromise, it's a thankless and unrewarding task for most. Paid moderators might be a way to proceed. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Paid people tend to put their first priority as "keeping my job", so I would respectfully disagree about paid moderators being better. Looking at the paid people around here, it is a mixed bag, same as the free volunteers. Dennis 02:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • If their job is to resolve disputes and they are evaluated on their ability to do so, then keeping their job effectively is a good thing. Professional mediators and arbitrators are used in many disciplines to good effect. I'm not saying that a specific paid mediator would do better than a specific volunteer for a specific case, but as you noted, a sufficient number of volunteer mediators are in short supply to handle all of the issues that arise. isaacl (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Confused.com

I saw your edit to Unapologetic, you removed my comment of that Rihanna had a tattoo of the Egyptian goddess Isis, you wrote it was a BLP and needed a source, what do you mean by BLP? Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry to throw jargon at you. BLP=Biography of a Living Person. When you make a claim about a living human, one that might be controversial or unusual, it must be supported by a citation from a reputable source. Saying she has a specific tattoo in a specific place would qualify as needing a citation, and something we can't included without it. It is done to protect people. The tattoo isn't an extreme example by any means, but it is still something that concerns her person on a personal level, so has to be sourced to be included. Someone who is long ago dead, or on a topic that isn't about a person's body/character/actions, the threshold is different, but with actual live humans, the threshold is very low and we enforce citation requirements rigidly. WP:BLP might have some useful info. Dennis 21:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I've got it, I dunno but I'll take your word but just quickly do you think Egyptian gods and goddess' existed? Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    BLP is a real trigger around here, it's one of those things you have be extraordinarily careful with, trust me. Hang around a while and you will see why. That link should clear up a few things. As for Egyptian gods and goddesses, that falls into the same category as any other gods, modern or otherwise: I haven't seen adequate evidence to substantiate the claims so I will reserve judgement. Dennis 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    Let me brutally frank here, a step into the unknown for me. No gods or goddesses have ever existed, but the interesting question is why do so many believe that they do or did. I'm reminded of a discussion on the existence or otherwise of ghosts, which concluded that was the wrong question to be asking. Many people claim to have seen ghosts, so their existence is beyond doubt. The real question though is what were they actually seeing? Eric Corbett 21:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    This can rapidly bounce between psychology and dimensions beyond the 4 we are familiar with (supported by the idea that string theory says our universe probably has 10 or 11 total), which is why I just reserve judgement. I accept the limitation of the human being. We are certainly clever monkeys, but we aren't smart enough to know what we don't know, which is unquestionably much greater than what we do. Dennis 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'll just say this before leaving you and your talk page readers ("stalkers" sounds rather threatening I think) to contemplate further the potential BLP violation of someone claiming that a pop star had a tattoo of an Egyptian goddess. At the end of the 19th century it was widely believed that there was nothing left to discover, we knew everything. We know better now. Eric Corbett 22:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    Hahaha. Do we really, Eric? Perhaps you could tell us intellectual midgets what's left for us to discover. 31.55.0.249 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Just to humor you, Eric is quite right. In particular, the field of physics. At the time of Edison and Tesla, when Einstein was but a lad, many scientists were convinced that we were (then) fast approaching all that there is to know in physics, and soon, they would all be without a job. Quantum mechanics, developed in the very early 1900s, turned the entire scientific world on it's ear. Combines with Einstein's later works, Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915), and with a few decades, we had discovered that the sum total of human knowledge when it came to physics was exactly equal to "jack shit". So yes, Eric is quite correct here, many scientists were quite arrogant in their assumptions about almost knowing "everything" a dozen decades ago. Dennis 2¢ 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    I knew Jack really well, Dennis. There's no need to ridicule him just because he wasn't Greek. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

She got that done a while ago, the ink is under her tits, and is very nice work. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we include it, I don't think we'd be able to add a reference to a picture description Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rihanna-RiRi-fan: We use the URL to hollywoodreporter.com sd the ref. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines: can you please do it as I'm scared I might eff up on it :| Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rihanna-RiRi-fan: Sure, happy to help out, which article and where abouts in the article do you want it added? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in DS, I appreciate it. It's always better to show someone how to fish, than just revert and slap them with it. ;) Dennis 14:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines:, it on Rihanna's article for her seventh album Unapologetic, I wrote about the description of th album artwork and was going to mention about the Isis tattoo between her cleavage thank you guys though :) Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Just put that line back in and a {{fact}} tag after it for now. One of use will go in an put in a nice, clean reference for it based on the above. Dennis 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Added it, but the ALT1 thingy does not show in the infobox? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I put a link to Dennis' userpage in Dennis Brown (disambiguation) claiming WP:IAR that some people might actually go there to look for him, but it didn't stick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I am the antithesis of notable, and frankly, I like it that way. The real Dennis Brown was a dynamite musician and a powerhouse of influence within his genre and among his countrymen. I sell light bulbs, tweak articles, and used to play guitar in pubs so bad they put chicken wire around the stage. There is no comparison. Dennis 2¢ 21:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You just need some better bulbs, Dennis. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice. In the same reggae vane, I design all my own bulbs, including a couple specifically proven to grow ganja up to 30% more potent. It is an unusual job for a seemingly stuffy old man like me, to be sure. Dennis 2¢ 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Forget da skunk and stick wid da funk". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Accidental move

I moved Drinking in public to Public alchohol consumption by mistake before realizing that alchohol is the wrong spelling. I tried reverting it but seem to be unable to do so. I'd appreciate any help on this. Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorted Nadirali, let me know if I made a mistake. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks kelapstick well done.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on my talk page Nadirali. --kelapstick(on the run)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tis the season to smoke

Hey Dennis, Have you been getting any mileage out of your smoker recently? The weather change is perfect for it. I'm currently working on hickory-and-apple wood smoked chicken breasts with a honey butter apple glaze. It sounds sweeter than it is...I'm concentrating the apple flavor in a reduction from unsweetened juice. I've also quartered three onions and put them on a flexible skewer to smoke along with the chicken. I wish I could impart the scent to you via a scratch n' sniff link but the Wiki developers haven't gotten around to that yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • All the family issues have kept me from using it lately, as has the new business. I feel like an old dog bone, chewed up and spit out. Was thinking about you the other day, maybe getting together and combine some ideas. You are right, the weather is getting perfect for smoking out. Reducing juice? That is a labor intensive and time consuming task unless you are using the crock pot with the lid off. Would love to try that on country style ribs, pork loin or 1.5" thick center cut chops in the smoker. Apples and pork just go together. Dennis 2¢ 22:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
They do indeed. My spritzing solution is 1/4 apple cider vinegar to 3/4 apple juice. If I would have had it on hand, I would prefer using frozen apple juice concentrate to make the glaze but I had 15 quarts of juice here and didn't want to go to the store. No big deal to do the reduction, I just left the lid on a large pot with one and a half quarts of apple juice for the first hour with a low setting (3 on my stove) to get the heat up and then removed the lid to let the water vapor out. I have it steaming but not bubbling...I didn't want to drive off the flavors. The house smells *wonderful*. Apple jelly can also be used as a basis for a good glaze, too. Look for the opportunities in your schedule and let me know in an email if and when you want me to come down. I'm sure we can get something set up eventually.:)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A favour

Hey Dennis

Hope your real life stuff is going well. I want to ask you a favour, since I was inspired to look for an "impartial admin", and that sounds like you: Was [1] fair comment? Is the new image "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion" or not? Thanks if you can answer. No worries if you can't. (This link refers) Begoon talk 13:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a few old versions, including a Jan 2011 version that is very different. The two newer versions, once is just a horizontal flip of the last deleted version. Comparing the current to the old (and I am just assuming the old was a copyrighted version, as the history indicates), they are very, very similar. The lines around the eyes are different (the new ones are more round, the old one was more squiggly). I put them both in photoshop for a comparison. If the old one was copyrighted, I would say the new one is a copyright infringing as it seems to be very similar, or at the least, it was based on it and there is no attribution. Some of the lines around the nose are exact, the teeth are exact, the head shape is exact, the number of lines (compensating a bit for his right eye) is exact, and unquestionably, it was an attempt to duplicate the previously delete image. Not sure why he would ask you if you had checked the previously deleted image, since only admin can do that. Personally, I think he might be mistaken or just looked at one of the older versions of the image (which are radically different), that is entirely plausible, and yes it does happen. Or maybe I've missing something, but it seems to be pretty obvious copyright infringement to me.
I will ping Nyttend so he can see this and perhaps review, or educate me if I've missed some finer point. The main image I was looking at was [2] (admin only link). I would also note that the last uploader of that image was blocked for vandalism. The new uploader is a very new user, who has a link to another user's sandbox on his page, and other oddities. I don't have time to go fishing today, but it might be worth a glance. Dennis 2¢ 17:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Begoon's speedy-deletion tag linked to File:Trollfacememe.jpg, and its deleted image was substantially different, a mirror image with tons of changes that don't require the careful study you've made of the trollface.png image. My comments were solely based on comparisons with that image, since I wasn't aware that there was another; either Begoon didn't tell me about the other one, or he did and I completely missed it. The reason I asked "have you looked" is because G4 shouldn't be applied to files without checking first, e.g. you're familiar with a just-got-deleted image and know that this is the same, or you can show that it's simply a reupload of an online source; I took Begoon to be adamant that it was the same, more confident than is justified if you've not checked first. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Communication breakdowns happen in the best of faith, I've had more than my own share, so I'm certainly not going to point any fingers; it doesn't matter anyway. I just went and deleted it as copyvio, linking to that one I did the compare to, as I don't think there is any ambiguity now and confident we all agree that it is a copy of that one I previously linked. Dennis 2¢ 18:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis. I appreciate the time you spent on this. I'm not sure what Nyttend thought about my actions, and why, but I can tell you their attitude stinks on this. Very disappointing. I linked the previous images on the file page as well as tagging it. I'd also tagged it as copyvio (check history), but someone removed that tag on a "technicality". Not hard to check the page history, nor assume good faith. I'll assume Nyttend was either having a bad day or just dislikes me for unspecified reasons, since I can't see any other reason for their unwarranted pompous behaviour here. Cheers. Begoon talk 20:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The file it violates isn't the same name as the current title, which is likely where the confusion comes from. Again, I strongly suggest just chalking it up to miscommunication, and not worry about blame. I know both of you, and know both of you to be trustworthy, dedicated and honest people, I would suggest neither read more into it than what it is. I'm too lazy to go read every detail and comment, and even if I did, it is fixed and there was absolutely no bad faith here. Seriously, it doesn't matter or help anyone. We all have instances of talking past each other, or misunderstanding. Casting stones in glass houses, etc. It's a small thing, lets not labor it. Dennis 2¢ 22:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah - that's good advice, Dennis. I'm sure I've had better dealings with Nyttend in the past, which is why the attitude surprised me. Still, I wasn't on my best behaviour in my reaction to it, either. As I say, good advice - that's why I came here. You always provide that. Thanks. Begoon talk 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis, it is always a pleasure to see you in action. I hope you are doing well. Nyttend, Begoon, greetings to you also. With winter coming so soon in Dennis's northern regions, I assume he'll slaughter the fatted pig soon and we'll meet for BBQ. Go lightly on the vinegar please, Dennis, or I'll have to bring a bottle of Memphis-style sauce. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Funny you say that, I'm trying for cookout on the 25th, along with Berean Hunter and maybe another couple of Wikipedians, like Dank et. al. Still tentative on the date, but if you can make the drive, you are welcome as well. BH has a new apple glaze that we want to test out on pork, and of course, we will smoke some bacon, and beer will be consumed. Dennis 2¢ 17:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm in; John can come or not, whatever you and BH want. He's a good conversationalist but his eyes are going to glaze over if it's going to be all ANI all the time (which I very much doubt). - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Dank, Berean Hunter - Jeepers, I just saw that the 25th is the Lexington Barbecue Festival. Maybe we should all get together and do the festival then, and save the smoke out for a few weeks. The festival isn't a "must", but if you haven't been, it is very much a NC cultural thing and worth doing. It isn't fancy, but 160k-200k people from all over show up in this sleepy little town, lots of Americana and food on a stick. After, we can come back to the house for adult beverages and snacks, or grill out something simple if you like. What do you think? Dennis 2¢ 21:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, we wanted to go to the Festival anyway, I had forgotten. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Is there a backup plan in case it rains? I barely got my operation shut down and everything back in yesterday afternoon before getting hit by thunderstorms. I finished out the chicken and onions in the oven. We could also look at the weather a few days before and shift plans.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The backup plan would be to still come to my house, and we will just cook out here, and hang out in my redneck gazebo, drink beer, etc. Mrs. Brown is cleaning it up today. I will just stock some raw bacon and ribs just in case. It's not like bacon or ribs go bad around my house. So either way, barbecue will be consumed. Dennis 2¢ 14:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent plan. You're not cooking in the gazebo today? It's covered so you're set.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Not this weekend. Left over frozen chili tomorrow, but going to fry up some home made chimichangas for tonight, probably enough to have with chili tomorrow. I love those, lightly browned and stuffed with beef and cheese, with some refried pintos on the side. Me gusta. Dennis 2¢ 16:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The Boys of Wikepedia frolic at Dennis' House

Moar help

Dennis, you could help this guy, here: [3] by closing his thread, if you have time. It's this one: [4]. It's probably unfair he had to wait so long for an answer. I'm done here, but I felt I had unfinished business, and you're the fairest guy I could think of to bring this to. Hope you can help, since you're active, but maybe your stalkers can if you can't. Ciao. Begoon talk 16:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'm avoiding the admin boards. I did take the time to leave a comment, which I think will help him more than my closing it at this time. Dennis 2¢ 16:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a good comment. Thank you. Far better than a close. Thanks for the substantial help you gave me, and him. That's why I came here. Be well. Begoon talk 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
To add, your request didn't influence my vote (I don't really see a vote by you, for that matter), nor would anyone reasonable call it canvassing since you were asking me to close, not participate. It did point me to a discussion that looked like it has no consensus, and just like at AFD, when I see "no consensus", often the best thing I can do is participate instead of closing it. Any consensus is typically better than none. Dennis 2¢ 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)l
You helped me to finish my business here. I'll always be grateful for that. You contribute more than you know, Dennis. I'll say it again - be well. Glad I knew you. Begoon talk 17:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 00:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

They are at it again.

Hi, please check this revision: it seems that the user has not heeded your warning to them. --Marianian(talk) 14:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • They only come back every few months, but on the next event, they will get blocked even if they haven't edited for a year. I made that clear to them. Dennis 2¢ 14:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bergamot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks Dennis! You're a great admin, mentor, and friend. I hope we talk again soon. A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 00:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Dennis, Thank you for taking out the time for advising and guiding me in the right direction. I'll do my best again and contribute here whenever I can. Best Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Protocol

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules: "Comments that are neither a view, proposed solution (if using Template:RFC boilerplate 2) nor an endorsement" are not allowed, so shouldn't this be made at talk, not the project page itself? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Rfc/U, DangerousPanda's Rfc dissappeared. It's even erased from our contrib histories. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been deleted per 'lack of certification'. Just as well :) GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionable sock

user:91.154.101.152 keeps reverting sourced info on Gwen Stefani's page I do declare it most possibly is a sock as others have mirrored their edits can you have a lookie lookie please? Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't see reason to think they are a sock. Looking at their edits and summaries, they appear to be acting in good faith and providing reasonable rationales for their actions, ie: good editing habits. That doesn't mean they are correct (I love Stefani, and I'm an experienced musician but I'm not a genre expert here.) So who is right? I don't know, but that is for editors to decide on talk pages without the interference of admin. What I suggest is taking it to the talk page of the article. It looks like some discussion has already started there. If I'm mistaken and you think he is a sock of a particular person, by all means drop that info off here and I will be happy to look at it, but we really do have a fair amount of worthwhile editors who are IPs so I can't jump to conclusions just because he is an IP. Dennis - 2¢ 18:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Music break

Music break... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Good timing Doc, I'm listening to the whole thing as we speak. Eclectic mix so far. I've been doing a little picking on my SX Liquid [5], which is the most fun you can have for less than £100. Stock setup (and nut) is crap, but once setup right, the P90s are shockingly soulful, and the neck is similar to an old Tele, kind of chunky but smooth. Mine is sunburst. So geeky, it's cool, with a 50s vibe. I run it through a tweed Fender SuperSonic 60 I had custom tubed (cooler) with some Swedish JJ's this year by Eurotubes. Dennis 2¢ 20:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I got rid of my Telecaster a while back, for some reason it just didn't have that Tele sound. If it sounds like one of those great chicken picking country players I'd have kept it. Music break.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The MIM's are pretty good for the money, you can score them used for 200 pounds or less. A really nice set of pickups is 100 pounds. I break into mine and rewire them all the time. The new "Broadcaster" (bridge) and "Twisted Tele" (neck) sets are really popular, but I still prefer the Texas Custom Shop sets. Nice and woody in the neck, like SRV, and just a little midrange hotness in the bridge for old rock or blues. Roll back the volume a touch and they chicken pick well. Chicken picking on the neck is also good, with a woody thump to it, but not too bassy. Really nice woodwinds on this pick, btw, and the piano is an interesting mix classic jazz but with a haunting feel to it. Just a touch of an Arabic feel to the back line. Nice selection. It kind of reminded me to the theme song from the Showtime TV show "Carnivàle" [6]. Loved that series, and the theme music was really good, as far as theme songs go. Dennis 2¢ 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it's got a mysterious Arabic feel to it. Speaking of haunting, good ole Emmylou. I love her voice. Always reminds me of those 70s horror movies with the country music playing on the radio in the car and the contrast with a strangling!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Excellent example! Underrated singer, always a bit of sadness in her voice. I enjoy a lot of older country, Conway Twitty, Patsy Cline, and of course, Johnny Cash. People don't realize how much of a rebel he really was in his day. And Willie. Redheaded Stranger and of course Wanted! The Outlaws are must listen to anyone who enjoys a broad spectrum of music. Willie actually has some chops, he just seldom gets flashy. Playing that beat up Classical Martin. And of course he wrote a lot of songs for others, the most notable being Crazy for Patsy Cline. Being a native Texan, I was weaned on this old stuff. He is still kicking around, promoting biofuels, the legalization of cannabis and gigging regularly, at 81 years old. Dennis 2¢ 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"I shall call it the Alan Parsons Project" LOL. One of the best songs of the 90s ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hadn't heard of Dodgy before, wow, interesting sound. Interesting blend of genres and decades, yet very much their own, I went to check out some others. I remember Alan Parsons quiet well, I graduated HS in 83, so had bought at least a couple of his albums when they first came out, very much in line with what I listened to back then. Don't think we ever did any of Alan's work in a band, however. Dennis 2¢ 10:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This song (and video) of Dodgy's is great too as is this Sound a bit like the Hollies. Can't say I'm a big Alan Parsons fan but I do have a broad range of musical interests which keeps things more interesting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I like the progressive sound too. Hadn't heard that Revere had died. I was heavily into Brit pop/uk indie scene in the 90s but I went a long time in the 2000s without listening to any of it. I'm enjoying listen to it again now. Some greats which spring to mind [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The sun might explode, but it might blind you first..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I recently took The Yes Album to GA, it has that nice balance between "interesting" and "pretentious self-indulgent claptrap". Have to admit I'm more interested doing my own thing these days How about something with a nice groove? Who's that weirdo playing moog at the start, I wonder? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A little more polish in production that I personally like (I'm funny about that), but I can see a lot of different influences in their music, both US and obviously UK, including a dash of Beatles. Using a Telecaster as well, my ax of choice. They had a lot of potential, too bad they broke up after one album. Dennis 2¢ 15:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How smooth is this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Quite nice, he understands that sometimes less is more, very unobtrusive and excellent blending. I have a similar Ibanez, the ES335 copy [14] that I leave at the office. Similar pickups, not quite as smooth but the bridge sounds good overdriven a bit. Mrs. Brown found a solid brown one at a pawnshop for way too little and brought it home. I think I'm going to grab my Pawnshop 51 [15] and bust out some noise through my little Blues Jr. after Mrs. Brown returns with the evening feast (Taco Bell). It gets mad if you don't heat up the tubes every now and then. If you want something to listen to, its hard to beat the man [16]. People often don't realize how complex this man was, and how much of a hell raiser he really was. Dennis 2¢ 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course yes. He's a very good blues guitarist but there's something about him as a person I don't like admittedly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Me too, I've got an Ibanez Ag96. It gets better with age!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, very versatile guitars and exceptional values, both of them. I have a guitar you would love, a "lost weekend" Gretch. Only about 30 of them ever made, a model 7676 (basically the same as a Country Gentleman) that had all parts from US but was assembled in Mexico. This was after the plant burned down, Baldwin had bought them out, they were trying to get back into production. 1983. They aren't all that valuable (due to the prejudice against Mexico built), but they are some of the most rare Gretches ever made. I stumbled into it cheap by accident around 2000, threw it in a closet and didn't even know what it was until last year. I need to find it a good home. When I want some jangle, I instead play my Thinline, blonde Cabronia, the first guitar I've bought as "new" in 20 years, got it this year.[19]. Here is the non-thinline, which sounds pretty similar [20]. Tone is a beautiful marriage of Telecaster and Gretsch, just a volume knob and pickup selector. It will thicken up nicely for jazz at the neck. I have another tele with that pickup in the neck position and a hot single coil in the bridge, plus a Bigsby tremolo. I have entirely too many guitars, have a room devoted to them, with hangers on the wall. :) Dennis - 2¢ 18:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply

I had started writing a reply to you at AN/I, but I realized that I was just rambling so I figure here's a better place.

1. You're right about not being able to do that kind of ban from lower than AN/I, which is why I said "from here...". I didn't think it should have been brought to AN/I in the first place, but now that it has, that may be a good fix.

2. For the sake of argument, there are a couple of paths to those kinds of sanctions that are lower than AN/I...I've sometimes seen it done by a small consensus of administrators on user talk pages, and I've actually done it myself a couple of times in responding to unblock requests. (I'd be willing to unblock you if you agree to the following conditions:...)

3. I had read up on this user earlier today before the AN/I was filed, and I was planning on giving the user a stern sounding warning if they resumed stirring up talk page drama - something along the lines of "Dr. Blofield has told you twice now to stay away from Jimbo's talk page, and now I'm telling you. Stop. Anna Frodesiak is trying to lead you in the right direction and a lot of people have given you advice...blah blah" I think that sometimes a serious warning can do more than an AN/I thread with a fraction of the drama.

Anyway, thanks for the time you've obviously put into dealing with this, and have a good night. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Adjwilley, I had been watching them for a week myself. Taking them to ANI would not have been my choice this early in the game either, but once done, I had to join in. Casliber, Mongo, myself and other were convinced this was an older sockpuppet. More than just "a gut feeling", we were completely convinced based on behavioral evidence. When I said I would bet a month's salary, I wasn't kidding, I was that sure and would loved to have the extra money. We KNEW something was amiss. It is hard to explain how behavioral evidence proves this, but having a good amount of experience dealing with sock/trolls, you begin to see patterns. Obviously Risker saw them as well, which is why she ran the CU and did the homework. As for the folks defending Amanda, they just didn't see the patterns, either from a lack of experience or they didn't dig deep enough. It can be frustrating, but I understand wanting to defend someone, particularly when they say the are a 15 year old transgendered girl. That is what makes this so offensive to me. Likely they are twice that age, and just some guy using that as a persona to troll. And I'm not against brokered deals by one or two admin, I just wanted to make sure that ANI stayed open, for what now probably is obvious reasons. Amanda is a very experienced troll (maybe "I'm a man, duh" is a better name), enough to have fooled half the people, including smart people and experienced admin. That is why the block was so important. On the up side, while the ANI discussion had some heat, it was still civil and in the end, the process worked. Dennis - 2¢ 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I was mildly disgusted when I saw the outcome this morning. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
See, I wasn't, but I already was convinced this person was trying to use the persona of a transgendered teen to manipulate people, so it was last night that I was disgusted. Dennis - 2¢ 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agatha Marple

Ahem....

Another one - User:Agatha Marple. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated: lovely edit summary on archiving, matching something I wrote two years ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I've only chatted him up once but he seems like a super nice guy. I'm just hoping that he only needs a long break, all while respecting whatever he decides. I completely understand leaving. I did for two years once myself. Some days I want to scramble my password. It is core to why I started WER: not because I know the answers but because I understand the problem. You are part of the solution, Gerda, and I appreciate that. Dennis - 2¢ 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Successive relisting of AfDs

Hello, I've noticed you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajiks in Canada. However, according to policy, "... relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. [...] in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice [bold in the original]. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient". As it appears to me there's no perspective of reaching consensus any time soon, could you provide an explanation for a third relisting? Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • It wasn't relisted to substitute for any closure, but to get more input. While generally, being relisted twice is plenty, this isn't a typical AFD, having so many articles listed together. I would also note that the only two votes since it was first relisted are remarkably weak votes. It really needs more input. I would also add that relisting doesn't stop any other admin from closing it. They can close it today, tomorrow, whenever they want. Dennis - 2¢ 23:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Windows Phone 8 devices

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Windows Phone 8 devices. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Dennis Brown, I was scrolling through the talk page of the RFA and found your post. I was considering applying for administratorship in a couple of months. I was wondering, what kind of things do you look for in a candidate? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I looked at your stats [21], which has some good things and a couple of voids. Personally, I look for at least 6,000 edits. Odds are way against you if you have less. The lowest I've seen lately was Basalisk, whom I nominated, and I think he had around 6k edits and caught some flack for it. Next, I prefer candidates that have at least 40% article edits, and you certainly qualify. Next, I look for candidates who have had experience in dispute resolution, contentious areas (just a little experience) and fair experience with deletion policy. WP:AFD often offers all three and is one of the best places to learn delete policy. You only have 3 AFDs behind you, so this would be the best place for you to learn. I would prefer to see 200 AFDs, although more is better. Saving a few articles there by fixing and convincing others that the article now meets criteria, that is a huge plus and is a clear demonstration you understand delete policy. Enabling CSD and PROD logging in Twinkle is another good idea, as people want to see what you do there, even if it isn't much. As for tenure, you have around 24 months of continuous editing, which is perfectly fine. Keep in mind, these are just the metrics, I haven't looked at how you deal with other people or your demeanor, but this should give you an idea of where to shore up for a serious run. Dennis - 2¢ 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

History of deleted arbitration requests

Regarding this comment: just a point of clarification: requests for arbitration are deleted from the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page, but the request is still visible within the page history, and so it is different than situations where the page for an RFC is deleted and so the contents are no longer visible. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • True, but the results is the same that you can't go to the "old" page and see everything without picking through histories. Not my best comparison, but in the same vane, as we don't keep the page as a stand alone thing afterwards, like we do failed RFAs, etc. Dennis - 2¢ 15:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The point of contention, though, was that the RFC was no longer visible at all, so the past conversation could no longer be referred to, and comments on other pages regarding that conversation become orphaned. I don't wish to re-argue the point here (I don't have a fully-formed opinion either way); I'm just offering feedback that the analogy doesn't really apply. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Howley

Hi. Just noticed on my watchlist about the AFD decision. I agree with it but I would take slight issue with your comment that "The result was no consensus. Textbook example of no consensus".

I only posit this because of the presence of a phony IP claiming to be Howley;

Delete - I am the subject, and this page was designed specifically by political critics who wanted to post defamatory hit pieces about me. This should not be the point of Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia should not be cyber-harassment by specific individuals. Thank you -PH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.5.213 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

whom I challenged. Something fishy there. If you subtract that fraud, only two votes for delete, so I would say a clear consensus to keep. Anyway just my opinion. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The problem being that I can't guarantee who is and isn't, and the IP didn't want it regardless (although that is a weak vote if not him), so it was a punt to a safe result that would end in keep without disqualifying a refile at any time. If that IS him and he doesn't want the article, he needs to identify via UTRS. In that case, deleting would be appropriate as he isn't a political or major figure. Had that vote not been there, it would obviously been "keep", as most of the keep votes were very strong. Since "no consensus" still means it is kept, it just seemed proper in a case like this. Dennis - 2¢ 22:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No I agree. If he were Patrick Howley and he didn't want the article then I respect that and it is an OTRS case. I just was fairly certain it wasn't him, because he just left a ridiculous scrawl complaining about the article being "derogatory", which it isn't. When I asked what was derogatory about the article, no response. So I am pretty confident we can be sure that it wasn't him. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I mean't OTRS thanks, been a long day/month, and I've been clearing out a ton of backed up AFDs. It might really be him, and he wasn't sure how to get back. This place is confusing to a new user, particularly one with no watchlist like an IP. I just didn't want to slow down or give a sideshow reason in the unlikely event it sees another AFD in a week or two. I've been involved in a couple of those AFDs, they can get messy, I just didn't want "too soon" to be used by a dozen people if it really did come to that. Dennis - 2¢ 23:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Black Feminist Anthro

It would appear to me that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Feminist Anthropology was much closer to a "keep" consensus than to "no consensus". (There was no disagreement about the fate of the article—that it should be kept and that its non-book contents should be removed.) Thanks for clearing out the AfD backlog—wish I could help czar ♔ 00:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, there was a consensus to delete the content in its current state, and a consensus to build something else in its place. This is one of those odd AFDs, but they happen, where it is just best to say "no consensus" and leave it to the editors to fix. Dennis - 2¢ 00:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the difference is that the calls for deletion were not !votes to delete the article topic, but to purge ("delete") large swaths of content from the article. The consensus would still be to "keep" the article, even if it's being gutted. Anyway, my 2¢. czar ♔ 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It isn't the votes that matter, it's the discussion, and the split ideas about what to keep/delete made it impossible to craft a singular close that summed it up without explanation. The primary advantage of "no consensus" over "keep" is that if no one does anything about the article, someone is free to take it back to AFD without waiting, so it empowers them. Dennis - 2¢ 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Dennis Brown:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Dennis Brown:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Your Expert Opinion Required

Dear Sir, I have made some changes to the Educate My Girl Page. Do guide me with your expert opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangergirl34 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rangergirl34: The article in question has already been deleted once per a deletion discussion. The present version gives no indications that the situation has changed since that discussion was closed (yesterday). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
WikiDan61 explains it well. If you wanted to get it undeleted, you would have to go to WP:REFUND after it had a complete rewrite in your user space. Looking at it, honestly, I don't think there is any amount of rewrite possible to pass criteria here. Most organizations don't pass the criteria here. The business I own, for example, doesn't come close to passing. Most don't. It requires multiple coverage from independent sources, and that coverage must be substantial, not just a passing mention. The organization you are wanting to create an article on is new, very new. It is not unusual for a non-profit that new to not pass criteria here. I'm sorry. Dennis - 2¢ 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sir. This is the link to the fundraiser we did an year back.http://www.youcaring.com/other/educate-my-girl-computer-program/112232 . I hope this might be a little proof of our notability. Regards. Waiting for your honoured decision. Thanks a lot for your civility.--Rangergirl34 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
What we need is 2 or 3 newspaper articles where the primary topic is this organization. Times of India, New York Times, The Guardian, that kind of stuff. Those are independent news organizations that don't have an interest directly in the non-profit, so their objectivity can be trusted. The main policies that apply here are WP:RS, which defines what is and isn't a "reliable source", WP:CORP, the specific guidelines to include a business or non-profit, as well as WP:SIGCOV, which explains what "significant coverage" means in the context of a Wikipedia article. I know that is a fair amount of reading, but those are what we have to use to justify an article. Dennis - 2¢ 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of an alternate account

I don't feel like I should have to go into detail about my reasons for not wanting to use my main account for certain things. If necessary, I will identify myself to a member of ArbCom (but not to you). I'm sure you have better things to do than hassle me over the use of this account. Please do some of those instead. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Legit Alternate Account. In general, we don't allow undisclosed alternate accounts unless there is good cause. On your talk page, you stated the reason was so you could work on nude celebrity images. This is arguably a valid reason. The problem is, you have never even once worked on a nude celebrity image, and instead you have been chatting up Jimbo and working on Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)‎, and started a thread at ANI complaining about a user. This is exactly the type of activity that is barred from undisclosed alternate accounts, so let me be blunt. If you continue, you will be blocked as a sockpuppet using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny. You can either 1. Stop using the account. 2. Disclose your identity to a CU and have them sign off on this being a valid use of the account. 3. Continue and get blocked. I would consider this your third and final warning. Dennis - 2¢ 13:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Dennis, you do a lot of good admin work, but I think the problem here is a failure to assume good faith. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor in good standing. I created an alternate account to work on one issue. I made the mistake of choosing a name that turned out to be like waving a red cape at some people. I have never encountered Signedzzz before (which is a good thing). I have never edited Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) with another account. Jimbo has already checkusered me. I could have just created a sock and pretended to be a new user but I didn't want to do that. I wanted to be clear that I have another account with a history here. I'm not trying to "avoid scrutiny". I'm being completely open about what I am doing. I'm using an alternate account to work on controversial topics that I don't want associated with my main account. Cut me some slack. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I have, and I'm willing to, which is why I'm engaging in calm discussion instead of just jumping to action. It isn't like I enjoy blocking, the paperwork and drama are a pain. You seem reasonable, so do me a favor, and try my shoes on for a minute and be the admin: a guy says "I want this account to edit celebrity nudes with privacy", then go look at your contribs: Jimbo, filing at ANI, editing a BLP, no edits to the claimed area. Can you honesty say you wouldn't be suspicious? It isn't about faith, it's about comparing a current issue with previous experience. If I assumed no good faith, I would have already blocked you, but instead I warned a few times, to force a dialog. And Jimbo's comment was based on you editing articles that you aren't editing, and don't bar any admin from follow up action. I'm not against undisclosed accounts, but it requires being very honest about the scope, publishing that on the user page, and while identifying to a CU isn't required, it is recommended, so they can put a note on your user page. In short, an undisclosed alt account is always on a very short rope, so it is up to you to go out of your way to be extra clear. The reason the rope is so short is because the two most common reasons for an editor in good standing to create an illegitimate sock is 1. to troll on Jimbos page and 2. drag users to ANI to get them in trouble, while their own history can't be examined. This is why I say the suspicion IS reasonable, even if you are assuming good faith. Dennis - 2¢ 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I could be of help? LAA, at the moment, Jimbo has checkusered you but "... was unable to find any associated account or evidence of this being any longstanding banned user or whatever". In all honesty, the fact that he was unable to find an account raises more concerns than it does quash. It may be that Jimmy's out of practice with CU, he's not run one in the previous 6 months. It's generally better to identify to the arbitration committee as a whole, but if you'd like to identify to a single member of Arbcom, give me a shout. WormTT(talk) 14:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks Worm, that is exactly in line with what I'm saying. I assume someone can put a note on their user page, then if someone asks them "are you a sock?" they can point to their user page. This way, we don't have to guess, and realistically, life is smoother for Legit as well. We WANT you to have the account for reasonable purposes, but if we have to keep second guessing the intent, it eats up time and resources. Dennis - 2¢ 15:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Using an undisclosed alternate account to work on controversial topics is the very definition of avoiding scrutiny, as Dennis has ably shown above. Don't hate me for being quicker on the draw.[22] Bishonen | talk 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC).

List of drum manufacturers

Thanks for your deletions at List of drum manufacturers.
Almost all the references used in that list, to support entries without Wikipedia articles, are to the manufacturers' own web-sites, which does not prove notability. I therefore proposed at Talk:List of drum manufacturers, that entries without their own article on en.wikipedia should be deleted. Your comments on that proposal would be appreciated. - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably super, insanely lax about the requirements in that article, but they have to at least have that primary link. I really don't mind having brands in there that are obscure because I know that drums don't get a lot of press, and I think we are better with too much rather than too little, but we can't have entries with zero links to the main site. Technically, we shouldn't have to require wikipedia articles, but that would mean they need to show two links that demonstrate notability, which means they could just go start a stub. There are lots of other articles like this as well, where notability is kind of hard to prove, but if someone at least shows a primary link to a mighty fine main site, or a good quality link to a news report, I tend to let it slide. If anything, the article just need semi-protection, because the only people adding in the messy stuff are IPs, from what I can see.
So I will tolerate it if we tighten up the, but really, what you are proposing is kind of what policy already is, and a "local consensus" can't really override it. I personally just recommend reverting every now and then, and I might go ask for semi-protection. Dennis - 2¢ 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that the companies own web-sites, or other retail sites, are not "independent", they do not demonstrate notability. I take it you are happy if I simply remove all the names citing their own web-site, or another retail site, as their reference? - Arjayay (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure "happy" is the right word, but doing so would be within policy. Leaving them if you think they are actually a decent sized company, that would also be ok. We don't have to be draconian, just reasonable, and with lists, I think using individual judgement is best. Dennis - 2¢ 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
User:‎Northamerica1000 seems to be on a clean-up - I'll let the dust settle - thanks for the comments - Arjayay (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I know what I'm saying is vague, but I try to not get too hard nosed about lists. If it were a spammy article, I would go after it with a machete. And yeah, NorthAmerica loves lists. I tend to jump on some that he creates, I'm not shocked that he would jump over here. Really experienced guy, I'm pretty sure he won't break much ;) Dennis - 2¢ 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi D.B.: I remember you helping out in expanding List of soft drink flavors. List of hot beverages was just recently revamped. I know you're busy in many areas on Wikipedia, but if you can think of any hot beverages that aren't on the list, feel free to add to it. NorthAmerica1000 01:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You did some good work on the drum list, peppering it with some relevant images. Dennis - 2¢ 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

VOA Il Duce 83

Hello. Since you gave them this warning I thought I'd tell you that they're back at it again Thomas.W talk 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • A week in time out. I'm not sure if he just doesn't speak English or what, but he won't even try to communicate, so blocking is the only tool I have that works. Dennis - 2¢ 19:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Since all he's done here is increase the numbers in the articles about the Soviet and Russian Air Forces and lower the numbers in the article about the US Air Force, without writing even a single word in English, other than edit summaries (which could easily be machine translated), I guess he's Russian and knows very little English. So I doubt there will be any communication. Thomas.W talk 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, communication is required. Same reason I don't go toy with the Russian Wikipedia and alter numbers. If you can't at least marginally speak the language, you probably need to not be working on that wiki. Dennis - 2¢ 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • For a while I was tempted to post a template with a message in Russian on their talk page, telling them to contribute to the Russian WP instead, but I don't hink they're interested in contributing anywhere, they're just here to take part in the propaganda war, with sneaky vandalism everywhere, that is currently raging on en-WP. Thomas.W talk 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A template in Russian might be a good idea, if you can be confident of what it is saying. If nothing else, getting something to translate back from this person might give us an idea of their motivation. I hate blocking blind like this, but he really hasn't given me any choice. Dennis - 2¢ 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Which in English means "My hovercraft is full of eels". So thanks, but no thanks. Someone else suggested a message starting with "Путин, пошёл на хуй", but I don't think that would be appropriate either, even though it was more tempting than your suggestion. Thomas.W talk 21:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You'll have to pardon me if I laugh a little bit. That "hovercraft is full of eels" template would demonstrate to them why they shouldn't be editing on the English Wikipedia, and why we shouldn't be over there. :) Dennis - 2¢ 21:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Vern

Dennis,

You were the flag bearer for the deletion of the the entry for Vern Monnett. Among the reasons given were a lack of relevancy. Wiki's own list of criteria for relevancy include nomination for a Grammy. Do your homework. Vern was nominated for a Grammy for his work on the Texas Tornado's album "4 Aces", as listed in the article. He was also a credited actor on the "Beverly Hillbillies" movie, as referenced by IMDb. He has toured over 30 countries and continues to do relevant work in the field. Please reinstate this article immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.226.48 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87

I'd say it's about time he was blocked too along with Amanda and Patrol forty. He just left a comment on my user talk page which was clearly looking for me to react strongly to him just so he can preach his NPA nonsense. I'm not going to fall for it. He's a complete time waster and not here to produce content and we'd be better off without having him stick his nose into every situation. He's harassed Eric for pretty much weeks now and is trying to bait him into saying things and he seems to have started on me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I was in the middle of typing out something re: your banner. It was poetic, magical really. I wish I could write articles as well as I opine about policy. But you archived the page and now my magnificent prose is for naught. Sigh. The story of my life, I suppose. As for the other, you can request that he not post on your page if you like. We admin generally expect editors (including ourselves) to respect those wishes when clearly expressed, excepting notifications that require contact, of course. Other than that, I would have to look closer, which I may do in time. Dennis - 2¢ 17:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted it back. Now I need a break.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
But my text is gone! You're asking me to paint the Sistine Chapel twice in one day! Ok, maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic, or a lot. Anyway, I have to run for a bit and may say something later. I don't think the image is a great idea, but I don't think it is polemic, as you aren't calling Jimmy anything bad, you are just saying "I think your priorities are mixed up" in a satirical way. If Jimmy ever gets above a little satirical comment, I'm out of here. Dennis - 2¢ 17:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I doubt anybody would really have the balls to turn up on my talk page and agree with me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've left a message on your talk page. I know that isn't why you came here, but this kind of thing really bugs me, censoring genuine and tasteful criticism of ourselves. Dennis - 2¢ 19:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Awwwww, Dr. Blofeld, you removed it?! Daaaaaayum. Dennis, I'm about to e-mail you about something entirely different. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm here, just watching some Family Guy on Netflix and piddling here a bit. Dennis - 2¢ 19:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record I would have been happy to have been pinged about a discussion regarding me being blocked, anyways I have agreed not to post on Dr. Blofeld's talk-page. I feel this is for the best course of action. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

checkuser blocks

"Only a checkuser may review a checkuser block" -- are you sure? I've always interpreted policy as only a checkuser may overturn a checkuser block; is a non-checkuser upholding a checkuser block based upon SPI and behavioral evidence now considered improper? --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U

awarded to Dennis Brown for getting the ball rolling on the CheckUser request on my sock investigation (which showed I was innocent, which was all I was trying to convey the whole time).
You "scratched my back" as it were, so I'm indebted to you. Name the return "scratch", and it's yours.
Vjmlhds (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Dennis. I've been reading the RfA talk page discussions over the past few weeks and noticed you said you've been approaching editors who would be suitable for the admin role. I would be happy to help/work in some admin areas and think I pass various general/user RfA guidelines and so wondered what you thought about me as an admin candidate. At this stage I think I'd be capable working at AfD, CSD, and RPP, but would be comfortable learning other areas. The tools would also help me generally, such as in the help venues. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Looking just at your metrics, I see around 8k-9k edits, 75 AFDs, which is a little light but not bad and probably good enough. Your ratios there look normal but I didn't peak into individual discussions yet. 57% article edits which is really good. 12% meta discussions, which means you have some experience. Your month contrib rates look fine, although September was one heck of a peak. You don't have CSD or PROD logging enabled in Twinkle. Not required, but a good idea, it shows you are being transparent, and would have let me look at your CSD ratios and focus much easier. Your total number of contribs are slightly on the light side, but it is easy to see you make each edit count, judging by the number of DYK, GA and FAs you have, so I don't think that would hurt you. I would have to dig deeper or be provided with some diffs for disputes and such, and would have to check talk page edits to see demeanor, on the surface, you look like a pretty good candidate. Before I spent a bunch of time digging up diffs, how serious are you about running? Dennis - 2¢ 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the overview. I have CSD logging at User:Samwalton9/CSD log though I've only just enabled PROD logging. I'm quite serious about running, it's something I've always considered I might do when I felt the need for the tools and just haven't until recently. There have been quite a few users needing help on IRC I've been unable to help properly since I couldn't see a deleted article for example, and with the declining admin numbers and assorted grumbling about admin areas I am enthusiastic to help out where needed. If you want a pointer for disputes, the biggest dispute I can think of was at Talk:University of Liverpool, though I honestly don't get into that many. Sam Walton (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the September peak was due to an AWB campaign to clean up WP:VG infoboxes. Sam Walton (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(tps post) Heck, I'd support him... KillerChihuahua 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • You do seem to have a good balance of stuff, Sam, which is what I like to see. Give me a day or two to do some serious digging. If you have any previous sanctions or significant problems in the past now is a good time to say so. It won't prevent you at RFA, but things like that are best admitted up front. If you wait for someone else to find it, it will kill an RFA instantly. Its all about disclosure. But yes, I can see me supporting, and assuming I find what I expect to find when digging deeper (calm demeanor in particular), I would be willing to nominate. Dennis - 2¢ 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As somebody who's seen Sam around before at WPAST, I've always been impressed with his demeanor and would likely support an RfA unless something egregious came up. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks StringTheory11. Dennis, would you like me to work on my answers & fill in the 'candidate area' on that review page? Sam Walton (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is what its for, a scratch pad to allow you to work on the phrasing, so you can cut an paste at RFA time. Dennis - 2¢ 14:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Question blocking policy

I started a thread with a Q about your recent edit at blocking policy, at that page's talk page. I'll watch for reply there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • That's fine. I won't be shocked if there are questions, but really, this is already implied by policy. It is the same reason we don't allow non-admin to review blocks: you can't review what you can't undo. Dennis - 2¢ 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)a

Any chance you could help out?

A new editor is continually introducing deliberate factual errors here. I have already reverted him a few times per BANEX, but it is obviously just a matter of time till someone decides I am gaming the system and blocks my arse, can you please point this newbie in the right direction? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Reading through his deleted contribs, I don't expect much. I've given him a final warning. He seems pretty hell bent on pushing a POV that isn't backed by the sources, and that is a one way trip to getting blocked. Dennis - 2¢ 19:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Amanda

The unblock request is declined, so brown and not blue. (It is not in any category, right?) Is a checkuser aware that it needs reviewing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Brown means declined. Phil Knight reviewed it, ex Arb, CU, plenty qualified to do so. Plus he added the non-CU justification for maintaining the block. So two ex-Arbs and current CUs have blocked and maintained the block. Two of our most experienced editors have kept her block, no one will dare unblock her, unless it was BASC or Arb itself, which isn't likely. Unreviewed blocks are in a category, actually, I forget the link. Dennis - 2¢ 14:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course I know brown means declined. (Blue then either brown or green.) :) I saw your comment and assumed Phil was not a CU and you were waiting for someone else. I see it was Jamie first, then Phil, who closed the case for good. And that is that. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to give you the script to show userrights, but you already have it, you just have to go to Phil's user page and it says the rights under his name. :p But yes, I struck my comment after Phil reviewed. It was left because Jamie had (in good faith) mistakenly reviewed. It is implied, but I went and changed Wikipedia:Blocking policy to make it explicit: an admin can't decline an unblock if they lack the authority to accept it. Seems only fair. Dennis - 2¢ 14:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the script. I just didn't click on Phil's page to check his rights. I was doing other things, and just drove by Amanda's page and saw your comment below the decline. Sorry for not checking the history. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Proof

Where is the proof that the user is not a transgendered individual? You do realize that there is no direct way to tell whether someone is being a fraud for the transgendered identity, right? Socking and everything else aside, I'd like to focus on this bit because being misgendered, especially when you're in the vulnerable position (being blocked) can be seen as exacerbating the flames and can lead to editor depression and possible suicide. The fact that the user has socked does not alone lend credibility to the theory that the user was 'faking it for protection due to it being a minority group'. There could be a legitimate person being absolutely degraded and humiliated, especially by the heavily offensive and vitriolic phrase, "A man, duh". I'd like your thoughts. Tutelary (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • You need to go view the ANI discussion, which has all the links. Amanda was about to be blocked for WP:NOTHERE right before Risker blocked for a CU block. It is no shocker when someone lies about their identity multiple times, they might be lying about it the last time, but suffice it to say that a number of us know transgendered people and this editor's actions/words/etc were so wildly out of character, it was obvious they weren't a teenage girl, very unlikely female, very unlikely transgendered, and then we found they lied about a great deal more. Again, the ANI has all the input. I particularly find this offensive as being transgendered isn't exactly a walk in the park, and there is enough harassment that comes with it, without someone adopting this as their persona here. Most importantly, being transgendered shouldn't matter at Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, we don't discriminate against men, women, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. We are also not here to be a social network or a form of WP:THERAPY. Whatever the problem he has, it was obvious he isn't a transgendered teenage girl, and the request to work with Eric was just the red flag, not the final straw. Read that whole ANI, plus all the things Amanda said that lead to that ANI. It is a lot of material, too much for me to summarize here. Only one person believed Amanda, and quickly changed their mind once they saw the other stuff. Dennis - 2¢ 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
but suffice it to say that a number of us know transgendered people and this editor's actions/words/etc were so wildly out of character, it was obvious they weren't a teenage girl, very unlikely female, very unlikely transgendered, and then we found they lied about a great deal more. So you're saying that it's out of line on how a transgendered person should be reacting to Wikipedia? If that person isn't adhering to what you would expect from a transgendered editor? Sigh, I don't believe that a person should have to conform to the stereotypes of their identity to be considered of that identity. Same way that somebody may 'act' straight, but be gay in actuality. Does that mean they're obviously not gay because they were acting straight? No, they're still gay. Same here. Because a person 'acts' as not being transgendered (and I'm not really sure how they managed that, they commented on Eric's page and the like, I didn't see much conduct that implied such). I particularly find this offensive as being transgendered isn't exactly a walk in the park, and there is enough harassment that comes with it I do find it offensive as well if it's true. But given my benefit of the doubt, I can't help but see there being absolutely no reason for this implication other than the fact that the user socked. I guess I should ask: If a person socks, does that mean we can just throw out their gender identity full heartedly? Oh, can we also call them 'A man, duh' when it's been blatantly clear that they assert themself as a transgendered individual, full well knowing that if it's true, that that's effective blow to their mental health? Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You need to go read the ANI and all the back material. You are trying to cherry pick my statements and use those as evidence, but it doesn't work that way. No one said anyone had to act like a stereotype, but there are still behaviors that are consistent with deception. I had no idea she was a sockpuppet, nor did the rest of us, when the bulk of the community felt she wasn't a she, so you are taking this out of context and twisting the events into a shape they didn't exist in. If there was any inkling that Amanda was who he said he was, of course I wouldn't have hammed that point. But there really is no doubt to many of us. If you see a woman dancing around smiling and laughing and twirling and she says "I was just diagnosed with brain cancer", you can know that she is lying. You don't have to say "she didn't fit the strict stereotype of a cancer victim", you just know she is lying. You are saying there should be a benefit of the doubt, I am saying there is no doubt. I don't know what you are basing your judgement on. I know what I'm basing mine on. Again, go back and read all their diffs, go back and look at the interactions, it doesn't take more than psychology 101 to get a bead on them. I already did this at the ANI. Until you have done all that, then everything you say here is just conjecture and not particularly useful. Dennis - 2¢ 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Could I get some eyes?

Brandenbruso (talk · contribs) is methodically going through US president articles changing infobox pictures. User was blocked for thisj ust two days ago. Could you look please? BusterD (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Another user and I were barely keeping up with the changes, which had to be planned ahead of time, based on rapidity... BusterD (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I'm not quite sure what is going on. They aren't typical vandalism, I really don't know what to make of them. I just did an indef because I can't tell if it is vandalism, or just dumb mistakes, or what, and indef covers it all. Dennis - 2¢ 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I didn't know how best to handle this, so I flagged an admin I saw actively editing. I thought your blocking explanation on the user's talk was kind and open-ended. None of us want to discourage a new editor, but changing infobox images on featured articles is a poor place to start. The user's choices weren't bad, but just didn't match agreed style (photo preferable to painting). Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The ones I looked at where flatly broken links, and he made no attempt to discuss, and it was a repeat of the reason he was blocked before. Dennis - 2¢ 20:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Restore request

Hi Dennis. Can you restore User:INeverCry/CSD log for me when you have time? INeverCry 09:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Don't know how often Dennis is about at the moment, so I've done this for you. Yunshui 雲水 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm here a bit this week, but I always appreciate someone jumping in and getting the job done quicker. Dennis - 2¢ 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Yunshui. I love it when fellow Commons admins show up and take care of a request for me there, and it was the same when I was an admin here. INeverCry 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
To keep up with me for your great contributions to Wikipedia, I'm rewarding you the Random Acts of Kindness award for act of great effort. Keep this up with another awesome thing, Dennis Brown. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Village pump RfA thing

Did we put our opposes in the wrong spot? :) I just stuck mine below User:Church's. Now, others are getting it all mixed up too. Feel free to move stuff about, including mine. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my "Oppose" to "Maintain". That made it clear. I do not even know why there are two subsections. Why not one subsection where people say "Abolish" or "Maintain"? The statement "Please vote Abolish (Support) to abolish our current RfA system or Maintain (Oppose) to maintain it (for now)." and then providing two subsections "Abolish current RfA system" and "Maintain current RfA system" is a bit unnecessary. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • hehe, someone will sort it out. Honestly, I don't think it matters. There is no way that RFA will get thrown out without a replacement. Even if they got a majority vote there (not likely), it doesn't overrule what is called community consensus, nor the WMF. I probably shouldn't have even jumped in that discussion, it is absurd and silly to talk of destroying RFA without a replacement. And as soon as I started suggesting tweaks, they excuse was "NO! We've tried to get tweaks before and people voted them down!!!". Um, yes, like you are doing right now? I have learned the hard way, by proposing new policies and policy changes, that some people are afraid of any change so they will oppose everything, and some think that policies should reflect their own ideas 100%, or they will oppose the change. This is why nothing gets done. Meanwhile, I just keep nominating people like you, and they pass. All this fuss at VP is full of good intention and hot air. Dennis - 2¢ 12:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to freak out everyone, change your Maintain to "Mainbolish" or "Suppose" with a cryptic and self-contradictory rationale. Oh, and stick it under a new subheading called "Mainbolish/Suppose". Joking. But, seriously, I love what you wrote above. Wikipedia is a bit of a madhouse sometimes. Sort of a comedy of errors, but it ticks along.
I wrote to JohnCD here. I didn't know there had been a lot of discussion about how to find the cause of the decline. I just thought the decline itself was discussed to death and much speculated upon. Anyhow, if there is going to be a plan to help bring the numbers up, it will surely be based on the reason the numbers are falling. That much is obvious. :)
I like what you are doing with the direct approach of going out and finding admins. Nice. I also respect your views on the reasons for the decline a lot. You mentioned somewhere today that you have asked dozens about their reluctance. You probably know better than anyone.
I think I need to unwatch that RfA talk page. I'm not sure how I got watching it in the first place, and don't even know if this flurry of activity is the norm.
Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of funny, and enjoyable to watch you mature into the admin role. I've already told you I think you are one of the finest we have here, but you do lose some of the "innocence" after a while, and you start to see why sometimes you have to be firm, or just swing the hammer. But you've managed to do it without losing your sense of humor, sense of self, and without being a bitter, intolerant husk of a former person, like the rest of us ;). And now your sense of humor is getting a bit twisted, which I adore because I relate to it. You HAVE to laugh at yourself, at Wikipedia. Too many take it all too serious and they actually hurt the thing they claim to love. Admining here is like herding cats, if you can't laugh, it will drive you mad. And yes, the "unwatching of pages" is the next step, to keep yourself out of trouble. Caring is like medicine: a little makes you better, too much is toxic. Sometimes you have to just put it out of your mind by unwatching for a while. Dennis - 2¢ 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I love "...intolerant husk of a former person..." You could fill in for Dave Barry when he's on holiday. And yes, Wikipedia reminds me a bit of that book Catch 22, where it all functions in a bit of a mad way. Really, you are one of the really sane people here. You are totally pilot material. As for me as an admin, I promised myself that my first year would be low-hanging fruit. I just realized that it has been 16 months. I will delve into rougher waters soon. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has done a lot of diving (sometimes into 1 meter water....) I can say that you serve us and yourself best if you don't get TOO involved. I've gotten too involved and it has taken a toll on me. It is hard to find that balance, to be involved but not so much it consumes you, so you can always do your best and be your best. Otherwise, you do good, but not your best, and you start doubting yourself. Plus, you can only handle so much objection. Just like below...someone asking me about Amanda. He's doing so in a perfectly reasonable way (although I think he needs to read ALL the material before questioning, something editors rarely do). Some admin will be short, just say "look, that is how it is, if you think I'm wrong, take me to WP:AN". I try to not do that until there is a genuine impasse. This looks like one of those cases where we probably won't agree, and even though I didn't use the tools (so WP:ADMINACCT inst' an issue, but my behavior is) I want to provide all the opportunity to be heard and to listen. If you get tied in controversial stuff all the time, it makes you impatient for stuff like that, and it doesn't bring out the best in you. Its all about balance. Oh, and I sent you an email, btw. Dennis - 2¢ 20:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I feel myself getting sucked into the backpages, and I do not like being there. Back to the mainspace for me! Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

German fries

Since your comments prompted the creation of this article, you are under an obligation to take a photo of it for commons next time you eat it. :) Deal? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What did Europe do before the introduction of "New World" veggies like potatoes and tomatoes? I shudder to think what the Irish ate prior to the introduction of their beloved staple. It originally came from South America, after all. Doc talk 09:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It was all about the reviled brussel sprout back then. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, it looks like the wonderful User:Northamerica1000 has found some flickr images. You are off the hook. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I will do that, as I'm thinking about making some this weekend. As he points out, there are tons of ways to prepare it, but most everyone I know prep it like I said, medium thickness slices, slow fried and only turned a few times, so some are brown, some are not. And you must, must, must cook them in an cast iron skillet. I have at least 1 dozen pieces of cast iron. I carefully season them in just right. You can fry eggs in mine with a little oil, and they won't stick to the pan. Truth be told, I love to cook and take it seriously, which might explain why I'm a bit fat :) Dennis - 2¢ 13:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and don't forget, the New World also gave Europe tobacco, so it wasn't all good. Dennis - 2¢ 13:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE FULL AND FINAL WARNING

REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE FULL AND FINAL WARNING
Hello Sir, Sir I respect your decision and I believe that you would have said this because I was doing mistakes, sir Siachen conflict was neither Pakistani victory nor Indian victory but darkness shine is providing wrong information. It is your will that whether you believe me or not.

Thank you for viewing. Shaharyar.121 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • A wide variety of people have warned you on your user page. Generally speaking, this means you are probably doing something wrong. At the very least, you need to STOP doing it and instead discuss it. As for whether it was an Pakistani or Indian victory.....I have no idea, and I'm not particularly concerned about that. My warning was an act as administrator here. Administrators do not decide content, editors do, so you can be sure you won't see me get involved in the debate. What I can't tolerate is edit warring to remove giant chunks of article that have seem to have good sources, when you haven't first got a consensus on the talk page. So blocking isn't about being "wrong or right" about the content, it is about being "wrong or right" about the behavior. Read WP:BRD, I promise it will help you understand how we deal with debates here, and can help prevent you from getting blocked. Dennis - 2¢ 19:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford

How would you feel about relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford once more in lieu of the deletion? I had rewritten the article from scratch this morning and the other participants did not have the opportunity to respond. czar ♔ 05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I went and looked at the versions before and after, and was about to suggest userfying instead as I think it is still likely to not garner enough votes, then noticed the ping my Kudpung on your talk page. I think DGG and Kudpung summed it up pretty well there. This doesn't mean there is no hope in the future, but as it is currently sourced, the odds are that relisting it won't make a difference. Participation at AFD is fairly low, and DGG is correct that most people draw a hard and fast line when it comes to schools, and several mentions almost never are enough to cross that line. I'm still willing to userfy the article if it is a project you genuinely think could pass WP:REFUND in time, but as it is, three admin (myself included) think there is little chance it could overcome the current amount of support to delete if it were to be relisted, making it pointless. Userfying represents the best chance if there really is a possibility of salvaging it over time. Dennis - 2¢ 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
On the last point about overcoming the support for deletion, DGG's post on my talk page actually recommended taking it to deletion review because he disagrees with his original nomination. (Though, on its own merits, I still think the deleted version of the article—the one I wrote the day of the deletion—has sourcing that meets the GNG, if only it were to actually be considered.) Sound like a good plan? czar ♔ 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You can use WP:DRV if you want, or better, use WP:REFUND if you have fixed the article. I never find offense in a sincere review of my closing. Technically, if you asked for it to be userfied, fixed the problems, just about any admin would move it into main space. If it went to review, odds are that it would be "endorsed", as review doesn't retry the case, they only look to see if the close was "reasonable", and since the momentum at the end was to delete, I'm not sure they would overturn. A closer doesn't normally look for talk page input in the decision, I'm sure you understand that. Again, my philosophy is simple: show me a version that has even a snowball's chance in hell of passing an AFD and I will personally move it in there. If you need it userfied, just ask me or DGG, or any admin you choose. I'm not bureaucratic about it, I just had to close it as I saw it. Dennis - 2¢ 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown

Now that you've been outed with various pings at GGTF can I just say I really liked Money in my Pocket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo X (talk • contribs)

  • I explain on my user page, he plays Gibson Les Paul guitars, I'm a dedicated Fender Telecaster man, so obviously we are different people ;) I did a little jamming on my Telecaster Cabronita last night, just knocking the rust off the strings. I have to admit, he is 10x the musician I am. I like his stuff as well. Dennis - 2¢ 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - it's an Arbcom Case, so it must be right, surely?
Never had a tele, though I have a Jazz bass (and once briefly owned a Jaguar, which was lovely). pablo 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Correct, because everyone is honest at Arb, and they never make a mistake. I started playing as a child, so I have a bunch of toys. Most are fairly inexpensive, buying $800 stuff for $300 used. Never had a Jag, but I've owned a few Jazz basses, Mustangs, Strats, a dozen Les Pauls over the years, you name it. Most of it sold. I do have four import Teles plus a bunch of stuff hanging on the wall, as well as a bunch of Fender tube amps, keyboards, drums, etc. I gigged for a few decades in two bit bands, country/blues/old rock, just fun stuff on the weekends. Mainly a blues lead man, but I play a little bit of everything. I don't have kids, so I spend their college funds on guitars ;) Dennis - 2¢ 14:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't driven a Jaguar you've never lived. I sold my last one, an XJ-S, earlier this year, and I'm starting to regret it. I've driven big American cars as well, and they're good fun, but they don't have the refinement. Eric Corbett 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sausagefest

I'm not much into festivals, but this sounds delicious! Besides the brats, think of wide array of mustards, rolls, peppers, onions and relishes (is the plural of relish reli?). Ignore the net nannies and style fascists. Wolf has been cried too many times and no one who matters cares to listen. You have every right to be pissed. I suspect some warm themselves off your heat. Ignore them and let them get frostbite.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 05:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Drmies said it originally. I didn't even realise it had any connotations, never having seen the word before. I assumed it was just a meat-eaters version of Oktoberfest and a play on Drmies's fascination with things meaty (bacon being the main one). People really do seem to be hypersensitive sometimes. Interestingly, the remark appeared in a thread that originated in some earlier needling involving Neotarf at WT:GGTF - see User_talk:Drmies/Archive_73#Photo_removal. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, Sausagefest IS a festival in Chicago, a place that knows their brats and sausages. [23] If ‎Northamerica1000 doesn't beat me to it, I might see if I can dig up some sources for it, thereby justifying previous comments about I keep talking about "sausagefest". Actually, sausagefest is a common name for several festivals. [24] Dennis - 2¢ 12:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_32&oldid=1144422356"