User talk:Dennis Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My barnstars

help[edit]

Well not sure how to word it but im here again with a request for a standard offer I have had it before twice and I will be going abroad for a several months so today is probably the day when you wont see my ip until december Its just a simple request I know I have broken the rules by removing pov pushers when I am banned but if I can lay of for a long time and be given a chance LAST CHANCE I can make a legitimate and honest effort not to sock ever again I have been doing it since 2008 and I am tired off it so is it possible for me to lay for for whatever time period you agree on and come back in the future? I could of asked another admin and received it but I want you on my side since I have noticed you are close to Darknesshines a user who hates me so please one more chance? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I know this place can make you crazy and it is easy to get pushed into one side of a POV to counteract what you think is POV from another. For some people, Wikipedia can chew you up and spit you out, emotionally speaking. For some, it is flatly an addiction. Maybe even for me a bit, but I can quit any time I want ;)
I'm all about second chances, for a couple of reasons. One, I know that many "POV pushers" are just as I describe above, good people that get pushed into one side of a POV argument and just decide to live there. It brings out the worst in them. Second, I've blocked you a dozen times or more and hundreds of other socks, and I know you can't "stop" sockpuppetry, you can only slow it down. If there is a chance to bring someone over from the sock side to the productive side, it is a double win for admin, plus a win for the editor. But as you note, it means you have to be able to demonstrate some discipline before the unblock, if you want me to believe you can show discipline after an unblock. I'm only one person, so keep that in mind. A standard offer would require community support in your case. I don't have the full history (and to be honest, I'm ignorant on the topic you edit in) but if put in genuine effort to quality for the WP:STANDARDOFFER, I'm willing to entertain supporting it. Even if it is granted, you would be under close supervisiion for another 6 or more months. It would be more productive that what you are doing now, however. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those words they mean allot I hope we can arrange something because being a sock for 6 years is getting very tiring and emotionally draining with all the stress and anger I will be back this afternoon or tomorrow and I hope by then we can sort something out. Thank you dennis I can see why Darknessshines thinks so highly of you. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey dennis whats the procedure now? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The procedure is to disappear for at least 6 months without any breach, longer is better to be honest. WP:STANDARDOFFER mentions that specifically, although we all just saw Russavia get denied after 1 year (his case was exceptional, I supported, but twice as many opposed). This is demonstrating you have the discipline to do what you say you will do. You then log in to your original account and use WP:UTRS, leave an email and request that I contact you. They will have to forward it to me, I don't have access. I will then email you, research to see if you have kept your part of the bargain, and if I feel comfortable doing so, make a proposal at WP:AN for the ban to be lifted. It would likely come with editing restrictions, hard ones at first, that could be lifted over the following year. Probably ban on the topics that got you in trouble to start with and 1RR on everything, but they would be lifted in time. If you had problems in those areas, they might never be lifted, that is the reality. Or they may simply refuse the allow you come back, and you have to wait 6 months to try again. I'm not going to lie, it isn't guaranteed and it is an uphill climb, however, if you will do what you need to do, I will do what I can. What you are doing now is pretty fruitless, so this would be better for all concerned, even if a bit painful for a while. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok got it I will be using this ip AND ONLY THIS IP I will be back to your talk page in six months and we can take it from there hopefully it will work out. So I make it 22nd december as my come back to email you then we can talk about the other dam long processes peace out. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyway for me to contact you dennis? I will be away from home from 27th June to October 16th and access to the net will be tight and I may have to use different ip which will sort of ruin it If you need to confirm anything with me or discuss issues with the Standard Offer I would be grateful if you could con~tact me on my email by I do not want to show my email on your talk page is there any other way? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Continuing to post here probably isn't helping. As I said above, the best thing is to use the UTRS system and ask them for forward it to me. It will get to me. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thats okay I will not message you (or anyone else for that matter) until after 6 months have passed sorry for all those annoying messages and thanks again for another chance. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know Den, he did not last long. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I will look at it later, but assuming you are correct (you do have a pretty good track record), then that would be unfortunate. I had intended on discussing the matter with you privately at the appropriate time if he managed to stay away, but it may be moot. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello friends[edit]

As my edit page notice now says, I'm dealing with some health issues right now. Nothing to be concerned about, but it does mean that my schedule here will be sporadic, and honestly, I'm a bit distracted and not at my best. I will still be around doing minor mopping and hopefully some article stuff for a change (speaking of, have you visited Glore Psychiatric Museum today?) I think it would be irresponsible for me to take on heavy or long winded mop lifting as I'm not at my best right now and it would be too easy to miss small details and make mistakes. Anyway, I appreciate your understanding, and don't worry, it is temporary. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Take care of yourself, much more important than anything here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What she said. Eric Corbett 22:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Rest up, heal up, be well. My best wishes for a speedy recovery! Jusdafax 23:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • best wishes Dennis for a speedy recovery and thanks for your support and wise words which came at the right time. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Get well soon. Yours, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Your health is far more important than WP!, Take it easy & I hope you make a speedy recovery. Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Take care! After all you know better Face-smile.svg . OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It was good to eventually speak to you recently - put yourself first for once and make getting better your priority! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Take care of yourself Dennis and get well soon fast, we'll pray for you. Science.Warrior (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Get well soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Raise up, heal up, be well. Great crop, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy recovery! Doc talk 02:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nominations[edit]

Hi, Dennis! Saw your comment at DYK talk. I am happy to nominate DYKs for other people (I always do a QPQ, so it isn't cheating the system.) Now and then if you have one you think could have a good hook, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'll take a look at the one you mentioned in your comment. Sure, I sometimes get frustrated with the DYK process - especially right now, when there is so much second-guessing after the nomination is approved, or even pulling hooks out of the queue after they are supposedly good to go - but I'm thick skinned and usually willing to go along with good faith corrections and suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The article I linked is bizarre enough that it belongs in DYK, a museum dedicated to high security mental institutions. We probably wouldn't want to use that third image as a main page photo, however ;) I'm also working on another, currently in user space, that would be very interesting but not ready for prime time: User:Dennis Brown/Articles/The Chair of Thomasville I have 5 DYKs, I'm supposed to review one now to submit more, but I would rather deal with edit warriors at ANI than debate at DYK. Any day. And I'm not exaggerating. Maybe it has changed, but what little experience I have with it has been bad enough that I don't even consider it anymore. That is a shame since I tend to write articles on really off the wall or unique cultural stuff, like Knight's Spider Web Farm (got a DYK), Dinah the Pink Dinosaur, the current Glore Psychiatric Museum, Lexington Barbecue Festival and the like. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I once stalked away from DYK in disgust - after being told that the criteria for a DYK article were higher than for a Good Article! - but then things got better and I went back to submitting. The folks there can still be very picky but they usually do wind up improving the article. (I almost withdrew a nom recently, when a second-guessing reviewer started insisting on what I thought was an unreasonable condition; however, common sense and a second opinion eventually prevailed.) Your article looks great, definitely weird enough to generate a good hook. I am bumping up the referencing on the strange devices so I can use them as hooks. I'll run the hook by you before I submit it; we've got time. Oh, and the text is just barely long enough; want to add any more descriptions of strange devices? --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I could find and add more description for the "dilator", but somehow I think the image is enough. If the text is adequate, I would just go with it as is, I want to be careful to not artificially pad it. Down the road, I may go in and do harder research and find much more on it. I'm sure someone has mentioned it in more than one book before. It sounds like a really creepy place in most ways. I would loved to have visited back when it was in the original prison like building, which would be a statement on psychiatry in that era. Oh, and thank you for your interest, I appreciate that. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not the dilators; they made even me squirm. I may add a little about the history of the place - about why he started collecting such stuff. And I will continue to add references, if I can find them, to strengthen the hook. (I want it to include the chair, and also the bath and the swing if I can find more independent sourcing.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'm not one that savors working alone on articles, to be honest. I'm not a great writer, but I do find interesting and unusual things that deserve an article, and usually I'm more into research than prose. Some of these articles may never be more than a full page, but that is ok: if someone comes to Wikipedia looking for something that would ever pass WP:GNG, they should always at least find something, and some links to more info. Even little stuff like Eliphante, which sadly, I haven't found CC licensed photos of. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Then we'll make a good team. I called myself an "article geek" but I really haven't created all that many articles, 70 or so. I've done a lot more with improving and expanding articles. By tomorrow I should be ready with a hook. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That is more than I have created. I've been holding out. I cheat and buy books like "Wierd places to visit in the USA" and thumb through them, dig up sources online and if I can find two or three good ones, I will create. I like Americana as a topic. Short articles, but overlooked topics. The other advantage of these more obscure articles is twofold: they are fun and they don't attract drama. My better work would include 1950s American automobile culture, but I had expert help from one of the finest enwp has to offer. That was still the most fun I ever had editing, got a DYK and GA out of it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Having things at DYK is fun. That one I mentioned above is on the main page right now. I didn't expect it for a day or two but then I never have understood the prep/queue system. Thank goodness there are people that do! --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
What discourages me is all the infighting over things that aren't really the purview of DYK. Honestly, I found it easier to get an article through GA than I did through DYK. That is pretty messed up. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's see what happens when I nominate your current one. Maybe it won't be so bad. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Since I've opined after being pinged on the talk page, we will see. Personally, I don't worry about it. I'm pretty good at handling myself in a scrappy and pointless fight, and lets be honest, admin get an easier ride more often than not. That is part of what is broke around here. I'm more worried about the newish editors that aren't used to the place and get run off from Wikipedia altogether. Dennis Brown |  | WER 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no question that the DYK process is daunting, even for experienced editors. And that the attitude of some of the regulars there can be kind of arrogant and aggressive - coming across as "why don't you know this stuff?" They think they are entitled to be brusque and demanding because it is making the project better; I don't agree that scaring off new editors makes the project better; but I haven't participated in the current discussion, which seems to recur every few months without much effect. I do think the recent trend of second- and third-guessing approvals and even pulling hooks out of the queue is a problem. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wow, your article is attracting a TON of notice even before it goes to DYK. I have never seen such a lot of interest and activity on the talk page of a brand new article. I think you have a winner here! Check out the draft hook here, see what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I trust your judgement on the hook. Since being paged there, I think I've ruffled a few feathers but I find it difficult to be less than honest there. It is reminding me why I unwatched the page to begin with. Whether that brings out the best or worst of me, it is too early to tell, but it forces me against the wall where I have no choice but to put things in plain English. I don't like what I see, not in the least. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and as for all the help. I've been very lucky at Wikipedia that way. I try not to ask for help too often, but when I do ask, a number of people have always jumped in and helped me out. I also find that really unusual articles like this attract attention because people want to learn a little more. Stone Soup really works on these transmundane topics. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
How about that - when I went to nominate the article for DYK, somebody already had! And what's more, it was immediately approved! I added a comment suggesting that we include the picture of the Tranquility Chair; we'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Ironic, if you think about it, oddly so. I think you are right that the image adds, although I wish the contrast was better. I appreciate the help on the article as well. It makes me want to visit the place, you just know it is full of scary and bizarre stuff. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, here we go - just as you predicted. I'll see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Missed the point completely. As you stated, it is about the museum, not psychiatry. The images are what you find in the museum. The prose tells the history of the museum itself and it's current state without giving opinions, like a museum article should. It would be wise if I stayed out of it and leave it to your generosity, which I appreciate. It's a shame, DYK really could be a good editor retention tool but I'm still convinced that it is more likely to run off editors than anything. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - let me deal with it. I don't mind this kind of discussion. I made quite a few changes in the article, but you have said you don't mind other people working on your articles. And I have proposed a hook more like the one I was intending to propose, and limited to those devices that have independent confirmation. We'll see where this goes; Wikipedia is (or should be) all about collaboration and compromise, not about one side or the other "winning". --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I never mind others editing articles I start, as a matter of fact, I go out of my way to get them to. Like I said, Stone Soup. I'm used to mediating, its one of the things I do regularly here, but I will admit a strong bias here that brings out my blunt side. The bias isn't about the fact that I've edited the article, but about my obvious opinion of the system there. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think it's worked out. Had to dump a paragraph and a couple of sources, but actually, I kind of agreed that those two sources were shaky. That's the problem with discussing things with people - you may wind up agreeing with them! 0:-/ --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── <<Scream of frustration!>> I worked everything out, met all of EEng's objections. And now the original reviewer - the one who approved everything less than 24 hours after the item was nominated - now they are raising some obscure objection about Original Research! Dennis, you were quite right about how poisonous a process this has become. --MelanieN (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It should be a lightweight process for new articles that aren't perfect but don't have huge or obvious flaws, but are interesting. If you see my discussion on that talk page, you might note my opposition to it being considered a "privilege". Same with the discussion on the talk page over the "dilators", which seems to be using original research to make an editorial decision. And people (mistakenly) think I'm exaggerating when I say that DYK is not only user unfriendly, but an actual detriment to editor retention. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Above you said The other advantage of these more obscure articles is twofold: they are fun and they don't attract drama. Nowadays it looks like DYK is a guaranteed way to attract drama! Maybe I should think twice about using DYK at all - as you have already done. Way too much unnecessary drama over this article. (Although I have to admit EEng's suggestions made the article better. The hook too, if we can ever agree on one.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I feel that you are being talked at rather than talked with. Judged instead of "worked with". I would never send any editor there, and instead I would strongly discourage them from participating, again, out of editor retention concerns. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • "Talked at" is a good description. EEng and I were able to talk things out and reach agreement, with the result that the article and hook are better. The current reviewer, not so much. Strange, since their initial review was so quick and simple, while their followup review is so - well, fill in your own adjective. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
          • MelanieN, the "Bath of Surprise" was sourced to the original book source in the article, the one I have on my shelf and is the only reason I found out about the place to begin with, but someone removed that source. WHY someone would remove a proper book source is beyond me. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if someone just deleted that DYK abortion. I don't want the pip. I don't even want to edit that article anymore. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I apologize for putting you through that. You were right: that place is just way too poisonous right now. An unpleasant and frustrating experience for an experienced editor; probably Wikipedia-ending for a newbie. (Their chortling at the end was kind of the final straw.) I won't be submitting any more DYKs until the folks there get tired of hassling people (as they will) and move on to something constructive (hey, it could happen). And in the past 24 hours I have advised two other people not to submit their new articles to DYK. One of them did anyhow; hope it works out OK for him. Anyhow, at least now a bunch of people will read the article and find out about the place. As for this article: I advise waiting a week and then re-adding your Roadside book to it - and doing whatever else you want. Off the radar by then. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Wondering if we can re-name DYI the "Wiki Bath of Surprise"? Makes some of those instruments of psychiatric torture look a real walk in the park. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've unwatched the page. I trust the opinions of you both. I come here to have fun and create stuff for readers to enjoy, not play politics. Editing with you two was fun, the rest wasn't. In the time I spend arguing with people there, I could write another articles like it, and frankly, that is a better use of my time. Like I said, I don't want the DYK pip. This is a minor aggravation, I've seen much worse there. If it ever comes to a vote, mine will be to pour gas on the project and burn it to the ground. It is an editor retention nightmare, the antithesis of everything I work hard on at WP:WER. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do invite me to help edit the next time you write an article about something weird and wonderful like this. I promise NOT to nominate it for AfD! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you and Martin are always invited in anything I work on. I just want to spend more time on articles and less on politics. I don't blame any individual, I blame the system, hence the need for napalm. My last DYK was a year ago, RV/MH Hall of Fame, which wasn't so bad, but I remember seeing the carnage around me and it put a bad taste in my mouth. I'm an RV guy. Don't have one right now, but I've owned several. Would love to go to that museum. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
MelanieN, I finally opined at that page. I also removed my name from the template. I'm sure my comments will piss off a couple of people, but only those that needed pissing off. I don't blame anyone who nom'ed or helped, if anything, that was with the best of intentions and hopes. Again, imagine if I was a new editor, young, proud of a new article, and had to go through that arrogant mess. I can promise that half would leave and never come back, so it isn't hyperbole when I say DYK is a retention nightmare. We will work on some other stuff soon. I just picked up some books to work on my 1960s automobile industry project, but I have a couple of other ideas as well, maybe some other museums. Of course, Martin and others are invited, I love worked with others, as long as we do so as equals. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, sorry to see you this all thrust upon you. Very ugly process that doesn't bring out the best in us, myself included. I just grow weary of the constant ad hominem questioning my adminship, ability to source, arguing points without researching them, and simply being wrong on every point but refusing to admit it even when presented with irrefutable evidence on more than one occasion. There are too many just like that, and the place seems to encourage that behavior, which is why new users should avoid that toxic environment. This is why I prefer to avoid it as well. Too many self-appointed experts who have a few good ideas, but it is drown out by their behavior. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I should have listened to you in the beginning. As you saw, I have now proposed going back to the less-good hook and dropping Yoninah's improvement. Maybe that will make them happy since they "won". IMO it's just not worth any further discussion beating my head against a brick wall. As for the people with good ideas and bad behavior, EEng at least has made his motivation clear: he does not accept the system as it is, does not accept the premise of featuring articles less than a week old, realizes no article that new is ever going to meet his good-article standards. But instead of moving on to a feature whose premise he DOES agree with, he insists on imposing his good-article standards on every brand new article, and takes out his own frustration on the people who are trying to work within the existing system. And while he is busy driving away the nominators, The Rambling Man is busy driving away the DYK volunteers. I apologize, again, for dragging you into this cesspool against your better judgment. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No apology needed, friend, you did nothing wrong and only served as a voice of common sense there, more so than I. It has been over a year, this just reconfirmed my previous impressions. It is one thing to have an opinion that DYK shouldn't be about new articles, but to force your opinion on others, that is flatly why WP:DE was created. Had I not been involved, I might have dragged him to ANI for the constant insults of others, incivility and obstructionism. It isn't enough to have some basic skills, you still can't attack others and force your singular view on the entirety of Wikipedia. I can spar with the best of them, it's in my nature, but any new editor would have logged out and never returned. Again, DYK needs to be burned to the foundation and salted. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the message. I added myself to the project with future prospects of creating and perhaps editing articles related to Pakistan as well as the fact that I had created articles in the past such as PIA Flight 544. That is the reason I have the template on, basically to show people I'm still interested, but no plans of editing until I'm given clearance.

That being mentioned I am planning on creating more articles in a few weeks and the sections that include Afghanistan and Pakistan, I plan on leaving empty with a {empty section}. I even avoid sections that make mention of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India or anything that falls within them. I also hope the arbcom is watching my contributions; especially article creations and hope that I'm earning my way to a topic-ban lift in the near future since I'm not here forever. As worm had put it something like "show as you can be a productive editor first".

I also wouldn't worry too much about the notices since participation is declining.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Nadirali, you don't want to do that. Even if you don't write about those countries specifically, you are talking about topics that cover those countries, thus it is a violation of your topic ban. At the very least, I strongly suggest you discuss this with Worm That Turned before proceeding. When I said you should avoid these topics like they were poison, I wasn't kidding. Even mentioning them here is borderline. I get the feeling you don't fully understand the terms of the topic ban, something BASC should have explained (and likely did). Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No you misunderstood, I do understand the terms. For example I'm not supposed to edit Tajik people since Tajiks are native to both Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Whereas editing Dushanbe the capital of Tajikistan is safe since Tajikistan is not banned for me. Specifically, I was planing on creating an article about the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict like there's one called Israel-Iran proxy conflict. I was planning on leaving he sections on Afghanistan and Pakistan blank since the proxy conflict also spreads to those areas, but if you tell me that's part of the topic ban then I'll leave it till the ban's lifted. To be honest I think I'm better off staying away from political topics, weather I'm banned or not. I'd prefer to keep creating articles on other stuff and keep working on those. Once those are finished, then I'll see.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Left a reply on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Beebs. I've tried explaining it on his talk page and here, but I don't feel like I'm getting the point across. Dennis Brown |  | WER 08:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Patterns on socks[edit]

Hi, Dennis. I'm fine with you knowing better than I would about possible origins of User:Password00. However, please let me point to User:Password0, and particularly the edit summary at [1]. And, whatever the origin, my guess is that it's pretty likely that Password000, and so on with more zeros, are soon going to extend the sequence, so perhaps those account names should be preemptively blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I removed that tag as well, it could be Joe Jobbing, but really WP:DENY applies. I will raise it at the SPI, but we don't need to be adding to his trophies. I'm not convinced they are him. Several things didn't look right, but I don't want to explain via WP:BEANS. Regarldless, they were disruptive enough to block, no matter who they are. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. What you say makes sense to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dropped you a line[edit]

Hi Dennis. I've dropped you a line on that subject we were discussing before I disappeared off. WormTT(talk) 14:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Reading and replying right now. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible...[edit]

...to get an indef block on User:BeyondMyKenDoll for obvious reasons? The account posted a sarcastic comment on Talk:The Pierre, which leads me to believe that it was created by User:Ksoileau, with whom I've been having a dispute regarding their addition of room rates to the article. Of course, it could also be someone else trying to stir things up. BMK (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Just to note that Ksoileau just restored the comment on Talk:Pierre that I reverted (it was clearly not an appropriate use of an article talk page). Still doesn't necessarily mean that BeyondMyKenDoll is him, though. BMK (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Hey, I posted an appreciative remark. I don't know why you think it was sarcastic. Are you somebody special at Wikipedia who polices talk pages for sarcasm?BeyondMyKenDoll (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    The "appreciate remark" was:
    ==Fabulous!==
    Congratulations on this yummy article! BeyondMyKenDoll (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Clearly sarcastic. BMK (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Dennis: Courcelles has taken care of it, with checkuser blocks on both accounts, 2 weeks for the master and indef for the sock. BMK (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for admin attention[edit]

I would appreciate a admin set of eyes as review on Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 with specific attention to Darkwarriorblake's actions. I consider their response from 17:47, 30 June 2014 onward to be personal attacks against both myself and Werieth. I attempted to resolve this by relocating the offending sub-thread to the talk page base on WP:TPO Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism... with a hook from the original location. Darkwarriorblake did not consider the points to be personal attacks and had been called out by Werieth as being an attack. I request that you please review the actions and take action in the guise of an administrator to prevent further attacks from derailing the purpose of the RFC. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I just can't today, buried to my eyes in real world work. I'm sorry. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. Since you are much too busy, I am taking leave to appeal to annother admin (DangerousPanda). Please do not read this as WP:ADMINSHOP as I'm trying to be 100% compliant with policy. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe you 100%, and know you well enough anyway. Trust me, I would rather work 8 hours at ANI than the 8 hours I just put in. Sometimes, the real world is just as ugly, dirty and sweaty. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock requests[edit]

I think it's something of a waste of typing for you to be responding as you did on User talk:Ksoileau‎‎ (saying to request unblock some other way). I'm certainly not the only checkuser who patrols CAT:RFU, and we're quite able to accept or reject such requests. In other words, there's no reason to discourage people from requesting unblock from checkuser blocks; they're welcome to do so, and it gives checkusers a chance to double check the results anyway. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Jpgordon If it is a checkuser block, I can NOT unblock them as admin. I'm not encouraging them to remove their unblock request, I'm encouraging them to use an additional channel so the likelihood of getting a CU is greater, sooner. I have recently seen a number of CU blocks that were declined by admin, and frankly admin should NOT be declining CU blocks or acting on them in any way. To me, when an admin declines an unblock that they did not have to authority to unblock in the first place, that is a problem, so the note also serves that purpose. One user had three admin decline them, and they were not CUs. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • No, you can't unblock them. But any of the checkusers who monitor RFU can, and will if it is appropriate. You might advise the admin who mistakenly accepts a CU block or declines a CU block, but it seems to me that it will only confuse the user (in the rare case where a CU block is inappropriate, though to be honest I've never seen one of those.) I wonder which approach makes more work for us? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There should be a specific unblock template for CU blocks. I think I started drafting one somewhere the panda ₯’ 20:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. My goal wasn't to confuse the editor, it was actually to protect the editor, so that only a CU would consider the block. I think the admin that declined the 3 blocks on the previous user did so in good faith, but they did so mistakenly and it wasn't really fair to the editor. My bet is that they didn't realize that it was a CU block. Unfortunately, they declined without having all the info, right or wrong. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vacation[edit]

I will be gone at least Thursday through Sunday. Need some time away from work and Wikipedia, hitting the beach. It is very doubtful I will have any internet access during that time. On purpose. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a good time and relax. Our vacation time started today and we are taking it easy and may take off for the mountains for part of it and then the beach! I hear South Lake Tahoe calling me. I may have to take pictures though. My vacation time is also "field work" for photography.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Enjoy your vacation Mark Miller and Dennis. Jim Carter (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my dog sitter bailed out at the last minute, so I can't go to the beach. Doing a few day trips instead. Went to the NC Museum of Natural Science yesterday, about 2 hours from here. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that's just as well, since Hurricane Arthur hit North Carolina yesterday. The beach might not have been much fun... Have a good time, whatever you end up doing. Mojoworker (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Glore[edit]

I know you've taken the article off your radar, but just FYI: It is on the front page right now and will be for another 2 hours or so. Judging by the number of people who are making minor edits to the article, I suspect it is getting a fair amount of traffic. BTW it looks like the DYK process has almost imploded this weekend. Nobody is promoting hooks to prep; I get the feeling the one administrator who works there regularly had to grab six hooks and move them straight into the top queue. This doesn't surprise me; in fact after reading some of the comments from the volunteer queue promoters, I had the feeling it was inevitable. You can only push volunteers so far. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly found it an interesting read. It's a shame that MelanieN et al don't focus more energy on ensuring the quality of the hooks at DYK rather than just whining about the situation. If ERRORS hadn't been jam-packed with DYK problems for the past few months, it'd be a different story. Perhaps, with her expertise in writing, she should engage more with the queues and preps rather than sitting back and watching the ongoing unfold. Easy to be a wise spectator, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Mmmm, I love a good whine. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Engage with queues and preps? With the atmosphere of that place right now, you couldn't pay me to. And in fact that seems to be the case with more and more people. I repeat: you can only push volunteers so far. And I won't be a spectator any more, wise or not; I have taken the DYK talk page off my watchlist and won't be making any more nominations. One less whiner to annoy you. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Phew. Too many grapes. The only annoyance is this subversive "round the corner" chatter. I don't see any actual fixing of issues, just lots of talking about them. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't be foolish TRM, we are a community that is based on consensus. Complaining is part of consensus building, part of how how change happens. Since I initially wrote that article and was forced into DYK (before I stripped my name from that template), she has a perfect right to complain here. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone has the "right" to complain about anything anywhere, of course. Needless to say, though, it doesn't help at all with solving the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I'm not convinced the problem can be solved. I'm not being cynical here, I'm quite sincere and calm when I say this, and I hope you take me at my word. Back when you and I started in 05/06 DYK was a way to take new articles and highlight them. As enwp has grown, some are demanding that DYK articles are really GA articles with a hook. This is in part because of the Gibraltar drama, some hoax and other drama and other reasons you already know so I won't rehash. The entire design of the system is being asked to do what it wasn't designed to do, it is overly complicated and there is too much drama. Again, I'm not bitching, I'm stating often presented facts here. After the latest round I've witnessed, plus after going back and looking through other DYKs and some archives, I'm really of the mind set that DYK has outlived it's usefulness. We could use something on the front page that might even say "did you know", but I am thinking that the only way to create that new system is to first get rid of the old system, for as long as the old system exists, there will be those that fight tooth and nail to keep it in any form. This is why I use the (albeit, overly colorful) example of burning it to the ground. It isn't about hatred for the idea, it is the realization that the currently problems will continue to exist until we completely remove the old system, then build a new system from the ground up in its place. New foundation.
People mistakenly think it is anger or frustration that cause me to say these things, but really it is cold, unfeeling logic. We can't be afraid of radical change from time to time, or we will grow stagnant. The current system has mutated into something that is rather ugly and that runs off editors. Even you agree with my basic premise here, but I'm not sure that duct tape will fix it. If it seems that others don't want to help fix the system, it may be that they have no faith it can be fixed. We should instead be asking others to help design DYK's replacement, with the goal of retiring the old system and all the baggage that came with it. Fresh start. That would be my first choice. My second choice would be to shut it down. My third option (it would never be a choice) is to wait it out until it implodes. What stops people like me from starting "hypothetical" discussions on a complete replacement is the fact that many who are emotionally invested in the current system would likely be a problem, defending their child. Again, there is no hate, no anger in my words, just logical opinion based on observation. As a businessman by trade, I would normally just shut down a division that had problems like this and bring in new people to reinvent from scratch, but that isn't something we can do on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x 3 or 4 - I think the mindset is important. We have to remember that Wikipedia is like a herd of cats, and there is no shepperd. If you want people to follow you, you have to make them want to. Things like GA/FA/DYK aren't privileges, they are accomplishments to be shared equally by those who start and improve the article, and by those that review and help get it to standard. Calling it "privilege" creates classes, those that grant and those that are granted. DYK used to be a light weight system to promote newer articles that had no major problems. If we try to force GA standards on them, it will do more than implode, it will burn to the ground, without any assistance from any outside force.
As for spectating, I would consider it foolish to waste her time as DYK is in utter chaos. She would be better off using her writing skills on good articles and avoiding the pip system altogether, until some policy changes take place that can either remove DYK from the front page, or make it work as advertised. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Write some articles. GAs or FAs or FLs make some FPs. Boycotting DYK until it's realised it's dragging the main page into the mire is a wise decision. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.. surely, you mean cat-herd, Dennis. Lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Need some help[edit]

Hello Dennis, I need some help here. I have strong doubts of socks !voting in that AfD. Most of the IPs hasn’t edited anything other than the discussion or the article. Some of the users where very new and haven't edited anything other than the AfD. What do you think, are they socks?? Should I go for SPI?? Your opinion? Jim Carter 06:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • 97.123.55.117 and 97.123.7.170 are unquestionably the same person, but the one's edits stop before the others start. As long as they don't double vote, it is just a simple IP refresh. Whether he is contacting others to contribute, I have no idea but I don't see evidence. 78.47.151.98 and 144.76.174.53 are on different networks but geolocate to the exact same location [2] and [3] and are presenting themselves as different people but I would bet my lunch money they are either meatpuppets or sockpuppets. 144* then registered at User:LuigiToeness, per his user page. User:BeachParadise shows up saying he forgot his old password for User:BeachesParadise (which only had two contribs). The whole thing is a sockpuppet mess and will be up to the closing admin. Each admin is different, and I tend to cast out any sock-ish vote with extreme prejudice, which means it if closed now I would have seen it as delete. As for the article itself, I didn't look, not interested in that topic. Yes, the whole thing is a mess. You can point to this opinion, but this opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee, it is up to the closer. I'm not sure SPI could help, it is all backed up so useless here, it is all upon the closing admin to catch all this. Dennis Brown |  | WER 12:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is so blindingly obvious, I just participated as an editor instead of worrying about the socks. These are the kinds of socks that go away once it is deleted, not the typical POV warrior socks that we really worry about. Their efforts are so obvious and would be fruitless anyway, so it isn't worth the time to do all the paperwork, block them, give them a reason to sock more, etc. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

IP you blocked[edit]

Pretty sure it's [4] who created the article the IP is arguing with me about on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm out the door, promised to take Mrs. Brown on a country drive for some back roads photography. I will give it a look later this evening. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jeez, that is a bit problematic. They both have the same insufferable attitude but different interests. There is also some interleaving of edits, although not SINGLE edits (which would be a giveaway that they aren't related):
  • BruceDavidWilner
16:06, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Gatch gereftani ‎ (→‎Synopsis)
16:06, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+222)‎ . . Gatch gereftani ‎ (→‎Synopsis)
16:05, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Gatch gereftani ‎ (→‎References)
16:04, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+844)‎ . . N Gatch gereftani ‎ (←Created page with '==Synopsis==.....
  • IP 50.128.184.140
16:19, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)‎ . . Gyro (food) ‎ (→‎Middle East)
16:18, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+114)‎ . . Gyro (food) ‎ (→‎Middle East)
16:17, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . Gyro (food) ‎
15:57, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . List of methods of capital punishment .....
15:56, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+71)‎ . . List of methods of capital punishment
  • There is a "confession" by the IP[5], but one could argue that he was joe jobbing. Have to look very carefully at behavior, as the technical link is kind of weak. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, Dougweller, I am pretty confident that he was logging out to edit some types of articles, which is bordering on socking (it is acceptable under some circumstances, ie: fear of retribution) for avoiding scrutiny, but he admitted it and was just using the two improperly, not to fool someone directly. I blocked one year. Had I known it was him before, I would have indef blocked, but this is pretty similar and will simply have parity between his two accounts. It took a little longer because of the unusual use of the two "accounts" but I'm very confident that you were correct in the link. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. He may find a way to return, he seems the type. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Jerrysharma[edit]

Those links posted by User:Jerrysharma making those accusations against Sitush and others (including me) originated a few years ago from an off-wiki campaign by some caste warriors trying to spread malicious lies in an attempt to hound Sitush off the project. A number of editors, including a large number of socks, were indef-blocked around the time. It seems unlikely that our new friend Jerrysharma would have happened upon those links accidentally, and coupled with the fact that he presented them by asserting they were true, it makes me suspect he's one of the old troublemakers back again - or has at least been in contact with them. I've given him a warning on his Talk page, and I would recommend that any repetition of those allegations should be met with quick and firm action. Cheers — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was going to block until I saw the warning. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I ended up monitoring after I wanted to go to bed. I was an hour into a muscle relaxer, and I don't like to block when my head isn't clear, too easy to miss some small detail that makes all the difference. I think FutPerf was exceptionally generous but understandably cautious. The account is unquestionably for POV purposes so it shouldn't take long. Dennis Brown |  | WER 12:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed - I can't see him being here much longer. Thanks for the vigilance. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks everyone for your comments. :)

First of all let me assure you all that, neither I am, one of your old trouble makers, nor related them in anyway, definitely not a caste warrior. Secondly, I am replying just because since a topic for name was mentioned here, I thought of clearing any misunderstandings, and definitely NOT replying to argue with any of the users. :)

Contributing for the first time, it took me some time and effort for writing the article, which I tried to write in most neutral way, as i felt the earlier content was misrepresented and bit biased. Didn't knew who wrote it earlier. My work was reverted completely mentioning just 'Good Faith'. I added a few references, and in the mean time a warning also was issued.

I humbly requested the user to discuss it. Upon talking to the user and ′requesting′ him to remove objectionable terms, it was denied. Upon showing all references in the talk page, I was asked to add specific page numbers; which even were not existing for the earlier content. Discussion lasted for a few hours with no result.

Now, any new user would feel suspicious if such things happen. So, I just casually searched about the person and found a lot of links, blogs, etc. So send it for verification/confirmation to Wiki, and not for making allegations of any kind for anybody, specially for people whom I never talked with/know.

No hard feelings for anybody. :) :)

I am sure you all would like encouraging new people to actively participate in adding contributions to the site.

It would be really great if people are given some time & help to understand the structure, format, policies and guidelines and to properly formulate their pages (e.g. adding references, etc) instead of simply reverting their work. One can always point out their mistakes.

I am sure you all, as experienced Wiki Admins & users would appreciate this.

Regards, Jerrysharma (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I don't buy it. As a student of human behavior, I find the saccharine laced comments to be very out of character for the situation. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't buy it either. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, he arrives and makes straight for a caste article and removes sourced material and adds unsourced puffery, almost immediately accuses Sitush of vandalism when he correctly reverts, knows where to find those accusations created by previous troublemakers and which are obviously false, and heads straight to ANI less than 48 hours after arriving as a "newcomer". If he's not actually a sock, then I reckon there's a strong chance he's acting in a coordinated way - we know the caste warriors coordinate their tactics off-wiki — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User: 64.4.93.100[edit]

I was wrong. WP:QUOTE does indeed discourage those sections. I don't agree with it, but community's opinion is all that matters and they have spoken by creating the policy. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Dennis, I would be glad of your advice, as one of my oldest friends on Wikipedia. The above IP user has, to date deleted well over 250 quotes in articles, with the reason they belong in Wikiquote. However, they have stated that they, personally, have no intention of carrying out this transfer. Personally, I regard this as a sophisticated form of vandalism. They have been warned by various editors, although those editors comments have been deleted from their Talk page, and blocked by admin. JamesBWatson for 72 hours ending today. Today has seen yet another massive batch of deletions, which I fear will take a long time to put right. I really think the time for action is now. Advice/action please. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • If they are deconstructing the encyclopedia because it should be at Wikiquote, that violates the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, is silly since the quote can be at both, not just one, and is acting in bad faith since they aren't making any effort to move, only to destroy sourced data under false pretense, as claiming it should be moved implies you are moving it. I can see a block in their future, but it isn't cut and dry enough for me to act unilaterally. It needs a nice, calm, concise ANI report with diffs, then the mob community will take it from there. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, Many thanks for the advice. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It does not violate WP:PRESERVE because of WP:NOT so WP:WONTWORK. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
We can let the community decide. If you are removing quotes only because you think they need to be at wikiquote, then yes, I would say you need to be stopped. Quotes can be part of an article and shouldn't be deleted simply because they are quotes. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No they can't WP:QUOTE WP:NOT quotation sections don't belong on Wikipedia. Quotes can be part of an article if they are part of other sections but not by themselves. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You aren't even reading that policy. You can't have an ARTICLE that is all quotes, but you can have quotes section if it is relevant. Some of the deletions might be valid, some might be in part only, but I'm betting most were not, based on your misguided perception that all quotes sections must be deleted. That is simply wrong. The editing process means using discretion, it means working some into the prose instead, it means adding some and removing others, or in some cases, simply removing. It does not mean wholesale removal just because their is a section called "quotes". Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No you can't "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section" WP:QUOTE "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote". Already other administrators said these edits are good. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If you can point to an opinion, I would love to see it. WP:QUOTE does seem to support this, which is a huge surprise (and disappointment) to me since it is deleting content that is better worked into the prose, which doesn't make sense to me. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
[6][7][8][9]. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The last person I don't know, but I know Jamie and Bink, plus my own reading. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but that doesn't matter as community consensus trumps my opinion in all cases. I stand corrected. I would still encourage moving some of the quotes into the main article prose when possible, but it appears policy does discourage "quotes" section on a wholesale level. Thus, I withdraw my suggestion to take it to ANI as the outcome seems obvious, even if it wasn't (to me) at first. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The Rules of the Game[edit]

Could you kindly keep half an eye on this article? Someone just reverted all my edits on the grounds that they were "against consensus", when, of course, there's been no discussion whatever about my edits, just about my supposed behavior, so there can be no consensus at this time. I've reverted on that basis, but I don't want to get into an edit war, so an admin eye would be helpful. I ask not because I think you'll necessarily support me, but because I know you to be (disgustingly) fair. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Hehe, a backhanded compliment is better than none at all. I will. I think he means well there, and is being protective, but that isn't a good idea. If it gets reverted again, use the talk page and a little patience. Honestly, I think Deo really thinks they did the good thing here and just doesn't understand how claims are personal attacks when they aren't backed. ie: Simple ignorance. That is very different that stupidity or malevolence (which I don't think is the case), so I think they just need to learn how to work with others there. Do the best you can, use the talk page, give a little. You admit they have some good ideas, so that helps; build on that. I really don't want to have to protect or use any of the tools if I can get away with it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We're in agreement. Deo's contributions really have greatly improved the article, I'm just sorry that they seem not to see my edits as -- in their own way -- doing the same. Anyway, I will indeed try to keep things on an even keel. I believe I've worked things out with Howunusual now, and I also wouldn't want to see protection for the article or blocks for anyone, myself included. BMK (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I added a note on the talk page, hopefully to set a pace and create an opportunity for everyone to work together, but it is really up to you all. I think approaching them independently is good, calm things down so they will be more receptive to your ideas instead of defensively against them. You do have to bump heads every now and then to get things done, here and in life. I'm a little more blunt when I put the admin bits down and act solely as an editor, I do understand that, and it's part of why I'm pretty tolerant of a little heat in a discussion. As long as the bulk of the discussion is about the merits and not the other person, I think admin should not get involved, other than to mediate a bit if needed. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, can you at least attempt to be fair. I'll reiterate what I already wrote: I do not wish to continue this after the discussion has allegedly been closed, but I have been vaguely been accused of "something", please clarify what. How am I not innocent? I requested a CE of this page on May 24th. On July 5th User:Miniapolis agreed to CE and put the appropriate "working" tag under the request. This user had just begun their CE, specifically the lead section, when BMK disruptively reverted ALL of their CE. I simply reverted BMK's revision and asked that BMK not disrupt a CE. On the Copy Edit Requests page it clearly states "When you accept a request, please place the Working template immediately beneath the request so that other copy editors know not to take it on." How am I not innocent? And please clarify where this discussion can continue. It is absolutely absurd that you Admins turn a blind eye to disruptive users and this needs to be fixed immediately. This User does indeed have a long history of behavioral issues and quite frankly it is not even BMK's fault, it is your fault for allowing it to continue. Enough is enough already. Again, a lot of people will agree with me so maybe what needs to happen is for all of those people to have one singe discussion on the matter and see where that leads.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm trying to type a response, which I will post on your user talk page. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE[edit]

In reference to your statement above that you "don't agree with it, but community's opinion is all that matters and they have spoken by creating the policy", WP:QUOTE is not a policy, nor even a guideline. It is an "essay", which is Wikispeak for saying that it is someone or other's opinion, and they have decided to make a Wikipedia page stating that opinion. Some "essays" do reflect generally held consensus opinion, but many merely reflect the opinions of a small group of Wikipedia editors, and I see no reason whatever to think that this one has consensus behind it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Looking around, it seems to be widely respected, but I may look closer after some coffee. MOS issues are not my specialty, and I probably should have caught that. Not exactly batting 1000 here. Dennis Brown |  | WER 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe the immediate problem we have here is that an unregistered IP editor is using WP:QUOTE as a excuse for wholesale deletions to well over 250 articles - whilst having no intention to transfer those quotes to Wikiquote. This, in my opinion, smacks of sophisticated vandalism and is against the spirit of the community. As stated above, WP:QUOTE is not policy and some action is needed to stop what is basically vandalism. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree: removal of content without providing an alternative access route (by adding the quotes to Wikiquote and adding the linking template) is damage to the encyclopedia. I had a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies to see if it had perhaps a list of sections for a general biog article, but there's nothing like that and no mention of Quotations sections. I looked at 3 biographical FAs, chosen from names I recognised as quotable people from the list of FAs, and none have a quotes section, all have a list to Wikiquote (Ann Frank, Ernest Hemingway, Maya Angelou), so that non-scientific sample supports the suggestion that our best articles don't have a "Quotes" section. But removal without providing alternative access is damage tending towards vandalism, yes. PamD 09:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This probably needs someone with more MOS experience than I have, it really isn't my specialty at all and I never get into MOS issues. By the same token, WP:BRD is also just an essay but carries a lot of weight, I just don't know how much this quote essay has. I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism as it is inline with an essay that is at least considered by some to be valid. I'm guessing this would need a larger discussion, but not at ANI and instead an RFC, but I'm not sure where. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) might be one idea. I suggest dropping the vandalism word at this stage, as to not be thought of poisoning the well. Ping me if you do, because I personally agree with you that quotes sections have value in many circumstances. Dennis Brown |  | WER 09:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I have posted a request for comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
After posting a request for comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding this issue and taking in account comments there and on your Talk page and the unregistered IP's Talk page - it appears that the majority of contributors are against the actions of the IP and that the excuse that WP:QUOTE is policy has been dismissed. It is a essay only. Considering that these edits are still going on - is it not time for action? David J Johnson (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you might need to concisely summarize the issue, link the Pump discussion, and take it to ANI for a discussion. I think you will find more opinions there, but I don't think we can jump to "action" at this stage, and when there is split opinion on a behavior, you really need a consensus for how to deal with it, not the action of a sole admin, as technically, we act only on the authority of the community in "what the community would do" fashion, and it isn't completely clear, even now. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take action on Talk:Unapologetic[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment to allow a genre change for the article Unapologetic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RuleBot (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY[edit]

There is an ongoing debate concerning WP:QUOTES and my question is related. I would very much like to have your advice on WP:NOT and the statement at Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY, "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." I can’t imagine it means removing all pertinent and captioned photos from articles. Does it mean then that all pertinent and captioned photos are meant to be integrated within the body of the article and not in a stand-alone photo section? There are many galleries in various Wiki articles (often science related) that help illuminate the text. I would like to resolve an issue involving editor IP 64.4.93.100 who blanked a section of relevant photos from an article based on his interpretation of Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY. If that is indeed what the rules are, fine. But I would also imagine that reintegrating various appropriate photos within the body of the article (contextualizing) is allowed. Many thanks in advance if you can find the time to reply. --Jumbolino (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Galleries are fly traps, just like In popular culture sections. About the only valid use I can think of for a gallery is to show a few illustrative examples of an artist's work. Eric Corbett 20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And I love galleries in a wider variety of articles than perhaps Eric does, but not in articles where the reason is simply that we have lots of photos available. The difference here is that WP:NOTGALLERY is a policy, not an essay, so it has real teeth. This means, if you disagree with the application by someone, you need to use the article talk page, an RFC or the WP:DR system for interpretation, as it isn't a matter for an admin decide, but an issue for fellow editors to decide. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just think of our Sunbeam Tiger article. It would have been very easy to include a gallery in that, as so many other car articles do, but I'd have fought tooth and nail against it. Eric Corbett 20:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you are here, what do you think about Tri-Five? I used small galleries as I felt in this type of article, it applied...pushing the policy to the edge, I admit. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Butting in: too much, Dennis, sorry. We have Commons cat for a reason. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked for disagreeing with an admin. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


On a more serious note, the goal was to contrast the three years. Maybe a little much, but I don't think overwhelmingly so. Now that I've said that, Eric will probably take me to the woodshed over it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I really don't know what to say, except for "Aaagh! Please God, no!". It's only a three-year period, so would it not be possible to be a little more selective? Eric Corbett 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My first block! I am, erm, overwhelmed ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Would that really have been your first block? Eric Corbett 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I had someone tell me I should hand it my bit earlier, and if I'm going down, I'm dragging everyone with me in the most abusive way possible ;) Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Eric, it would have been my first. You won't believe how much money I've transferred to various admins using Paypal over the years. Dennis, you're talking bollocks - I don't think you could be abusive if you tried ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That must be why you're broke then Sitush. You should do what I do, let the Devil take the hindmost and bollocks to the rest. Eric Corbett 22:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case Dennis the galleries actually serve the purpose of showing the different views of that specific model, rather than just hey we have a lot of pictures, let's have a gallery! Thinking back to fried sweet potato... --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. My article could maybe lose a few, but small galleries (I think) are justified. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As a final note, Eric may be right most of the time, but that has never stopped me from arguing with him ;) Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
"Truth springs from disagreement among friends." :-) Eric Corbett 22:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(grammar question repeated from your talk, Eric, agree or disagree:) should it be on the background of my "alleged long history" or "allegedly long history" as an infobox warrior? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. The distinction is subtle, but it's a distinction nevertheless. Eric Corbett 22:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
a block would be my first also, the typical sign of a warrior, - tell me others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Extraordinary. I've lost count of the number of times I've been blocked, probably about fifteen times by now I'd guess. Eric Corbett 23:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm still proud of the fact that I that made the final block for the infamous Malleus, the only one that stuck. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I haven't checked, but I think I've only been blocked once since abandoning the infamous Malleus's account. I wonder what's changed? Eric Corbett 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you filter out all the wheel warring and unblocks, you have six blocks since changing to your real name. So, to answer you question: nothing. Personally, I find you to be a bit mellower, more comfortable in your own skin. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Six blocks in the past year must be a record even for me. And there I was thinking that I was all set up for a successful stab at WP:RFA; I'd have loved to have been the first candidate forbidden from taking part in any discussion. To be a little bit more serious though, it always felt a little bit childish to be posting under a pseudonym and perhaps that came through a bit, and maybe similarly comes out in others. Eric Corbett 00:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree. That is why I changed from Pharmboy to my real name back in 2008. I like that there is a degree of accountability when it is your real name at the end of each edit. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not very hard to remain unblocked, there are editors with 100,000s of edits and they had no block. Self imposed 1rr may stop you from edit warring and if it is about verbal offense, then "When angry count to ten before you speak. If very angry, count to one hundred." Just like Thomas Jefferson had said. It works ;-) OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
When you're dealing with the sort of stuff I deal with and, like me, you don't have a self-imposed 1RR, it is probably a miracle. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree but you are also dealing with so many vandals, socks, topic banned users as well. Reverting them is not really breach of 3rr. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"We're sorry that we cannot return your gallery images on Wikipedia, though there is a prize for every one shown"

Vision On and Take Hart

I mentioned this on my own talk the other day, but if you've worked on an article to any decent quality that has high viewing figures (upwards of 1 million a year) it's not too hard to get into a situation where you revert four good faith but misguided edits by IPs that change parameters in the infobox, add trivia or change US - UK English (or vice verse) against consensus (etc) within a day, and suddenly you've violated WP:3RR and can be blocked. I see "considerable leeway is given to FAs", but the basic principle filters down to all articles beyond totally unrepairable stuff. In the past (though I have dialled it back a bit recently, or at least tried to) I have sounded off to other editors not because I want to change their mind (it never happens) but because I'm hoping other editors will latch onto my views and agree with them over the other party. It's dead easy to misinterpret text - only the other day I thought someone was having a go at Eric on his talk, when they weren't at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It also depends on the admin. I tend to give great leeway on reverts with FA articles that unknown, new or IP editors who are adding questionable material, but not every admin has the same threshold. I think a few blindly block at 4RR without regard to the situation, as if that is the magic number that can't be broken, ie: the bright line. Blocking is often the least effective way to deal with edit warring. Sure, it makes the problem go away for 31, 48 or 72 hours, but it really doesn't make the problem go away. Protection is almost always better. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
From my experience, admins tend to be reluctant to semi-protect purely due to quality reasons. You need to have a solid case of immediate and ongoing disruption or vandalism if reports at WP:RPP are a typical sample. Indeed, our protection policy states or at least implies that protection is totally against Wikipedia's ethos of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (as if blocking somehow wasn't!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For semi-protection, yes, but I will full protect at the drop of a hat when I see edit warring, to keep from having to block someone. I can always unprotect 3 hours later if they come to an agreement, but a block log is forever. The problem with blocking is that you are also favoring one side of a disagreement, even if you don't mean to. Sometimes, this makes sense if one person if fighting against a clear consensus, but not when two people are fighting over an info box and there isn't a very obvious consensus. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that's okay. The only bit that might backfire if you have to be away, and the protection is too long, which particularly on BLPs can annoy editors, though that's only a minor disadvantage. The trouble with something like an infobox war is I would probably think most readers and editors don't care about that, and protection would disadvantage them if they wanted to add actual content or fix a source. If it was just two editors against each other, I'd probably be more inclined to block the pair of them. If it was a huge flame-war with people pitching battle-lines at each other, protection would be better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Almost every time I protect, I always add "an admin is free to modify or remove without consulting me first", just like the banners I have on my user AND talk page. :) I would never block both of them. Blocks are funny....the threat of a block is a much more powerful tool than the block itself, as people don't want that on their block log. The problem is, the more you block someone, the less it bothers them, until it becomes a badge of honor (for some, not all). So the more you block, the weaker that tool becomes, until it is completely useless outside of an indef block and ban. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A very good point that many seem to miss. Taking myself as an example, anyone who thinks that my behaviour can by conditioned by yet another block is living in cloud-cuckoo land. Yet banning me indefinitely if I should cross the 3RR threshold inappropriately seems like too Draconian a punishment. I don't know what the answer is, but blocking isn't it. Eric Corbett 14:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I think know the answer Eric Corbett...if I block you, I empower you and embolden you. If I full protect the page, I frustrate the hell out of you, but it forces you to discuss the changes with the other editor and find a compromise. Trust me, full protection is a much better tool for getting someone to cooperate than blocking is, to get them to temporarily change their behavior. I imagine that in some ways, you and the editor are both pissed at the admin that protected, so you have a common "enemy", so to speak. Either way, you are in the same boat, so you better learn to row together if you want to stop going in circles. It also gets others who are editing different areas to join your discussion, (perhaps irritated at you both because you caused it to get protected), but still willing to join in a consensus to get it over with. Protection isn't a cure all, but it is effective when dealing with otherwise rational editors. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably well known that there are some editors, such as Eric, who have been blocked for superficial or trivial reasons (or at least that's what I've observed) so often that if anyone blocked him again, there'd be an insanely long thread on ANI while people argue about the block, Eric's behaviour, the decline of Wikipedia, "all admins are nazis" etc etc ... while the actual issue on the article remains unresolved, or at best attended to as a footnote to the dramamongering. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the way that protection scenario comes across to me is like the time the entire school got frogmarched into the boy's toilets because one idiot had decided it would be funny to clog up one with mud and flush one repeatedly to see what happened .... one person's misbehaviour ruins it for everyone. That just doesn't seem fair. Having said that, it might not be too bad if it's an out of the way article that doesn't get many edits and is just seeing a blazing row tonight.

Ideally, I'd hope that the "block the pair of them" scenario would only arise after I had already tried to resolve their dispute on talk and suggested a consensus (similar to this), seen them ignore it and then write something akin to "Okay, that's enough. You need to come to talk right now, you have both broken 3RR (+link to policies), I'll have no choice but to block whoever reverts without discussing here per that". For most people, I'd assume a straight "Seriously, stop it now or I'll have no choice" would work. When I've moderated forums in the past, that, combined with their understanding that I can throw them off, is usually enough to get the average person to calm down.

Where I think blocks and bans fall down is with the likes of Russavia, who knows the rules inside out and understands full well he can sock, sock and sock again, he'll just get indeffed, and start all over, allowing him to carrying on editing and give admins lots of dull and annoying work to stop him. He knows he can game the system and is probably laughing his head off at admins fumbling around trying to checkuser and block the next sock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've moderated forums as well, and just say that the accountability here is way, way higher, as is the drama if you goof up. Its a much bigger place, bigger than all except a few other websites. Russavia proves that blocks aren't "the answer", and that is where many people make mistakes. Blocks are tools, nothing more. If used properly, they can solve some problems, but just as easy, they can create new ones or make the situation worse. Tools are easy things to understand, human nature is not so easy to understand. That is why I try to talk before I block in most circumstances except the most obvious. Of course, you can't SEE the person you are talking to, which makes it very difficult to second guess them. I will just say that my attitude about blocks and such changed radically in first year of having the bit and is still evolving. Your perspective changes once you actually have the tools in your hand, and the knowledge that every time you use them, someone can call you out to explain your actions, and you MUST comply with that request. It's hard to explain the difference, you have to just experience it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Another thing I've observed is that users who have been around the block a few times know typical ways of getting blocked, and either avoid them or face them head on knowing they'll talk their way round it. New users, however, have a harder time of understanding "the rules", and despite requests to read WP:GAB, I think often don't really understand why hitting "undo" four times in one day on creating an article about their pet cat three times in quick succession is a problem. Username soft blocks are particularly problematic - we just want somebody to change their login name but it does come across as "you have broken the rules - game over". I think sometimes we go in a bit heavy-handed on blocking. Not everyone speaks English as a native language, and not everyone's got the gift for diplomacy and persuasion to extract themselves from the situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Usernames in particular are a problem. We have a pretty good template, but it is still ominous and overly verbose, thus probably not read often. Not sure how to address that without waiting to block and taking up a tremendous amount of time. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think my opinion on templates is well known these days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to revert me, but I added my own veggies to that pot of Stone Soup. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:QUOTE[edit]

You undid revision 614452399 to Wikipedia:QUOTE for the reason "I don't see a consensus for this." The issue was previously posted at Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#How_to_cite_examples_of_an_idea.2Fargument, and got no response, so it is not reasonable to expect the see consensus there. Rather than simply revert the proposal, I would prefer you discuss any objections on the Talk page--or do you have another suggestion about how to establish consensus? 165.189.37.11 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It had been 9 days, which is a good faith delay I admit, but that seemed to be a lot of verbiage and it is making a fairly absolute statement (particularly for an essay) and such a small consensus. It is an essay, which typically means fewer people watch it and consensus takes longer. I think it needs longer, but I won't battle over it if you choose to revert me. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Change made. Please feel free to soften the verbiage. If you know of other people who might be able to better address the concern, please ask for their help. I really just want to know how to handle quotes in these circumstances, and I suspect that deleting every article or section that contains many quotes would not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. 165.189.37.11 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We are debating this very issue at the Village Pump / Policy right now. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Thank you for deleting that article, I too didn't think it was fully up to spec yet, would you please return the new code from Heaven Sent Gaming to User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming, please and thank you. Smile Lee (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Normally, I'm quick to grant "userfication" of previously deleted article, but I have a lot of reservations here. First, you are the "owner" or founder of the subject of the article (not a biggie by itself), and then the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming itself was slog full of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I'm more inclined to request a CU investigate the IPs of all the users and help link up who was really using multiple accounts, which would result in those editors getting blocked. And earlier today I had to delete the article after another user recreated it just after it as deleted at AFD. (friend? coworker?) I'm debating whether it needs to be salted so that no editor may ever create it without going through an admin first. I know several admin watch my talk page (and I watch theirs) and if they think it is a good idea, I won't stand in the way. They are invited to opine about it here. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That AfD was indeed a mess, and I do believe there was a heavy case of sock-puppeting, but I'm going to assume good faith and assume it was a just a well-meaning editor or two that is inexperienced with Wiki etiquette. I've been on Wikipedia a long time, I have not shown interest in creating an article about myself for all these years, and I still don't want an article about myself on here. There just seems to a be a small contingency of well-meaning editors, that are a bit too giddy to put up an article. Before it was re-posted I was hoping to correct issues with the article, which are numerous, and to contact fellow experienced editors to help with correcting the article. Which is why I was requesting the userfication, I'll put a notice on top to not repost it to a main article until it is accepted by experienced editors. If the article is reposted again, I would highly recommend salting, so that way the article is only on the mainspace when its ready. Smile Lee (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I forgot to add, that it was Lankiveil that closed the AFD and it is customary to either ask the closing admin or have them as part of the discussion when considering userfying articles. I see you have already contact them, and came here after they indicated a reluctance. Shopping around for a different opinion might be seen as WP:ADMINSHOPing, and is looked down upon. You should have said here that you already notified him and he declined, which looks like deception through omission. Your only alternative would be WP:REFUND (where you need to ask and notify that two admin have already refused). You would also need to notify both Lankiveil and myself if you go there, as we were the admin that refused to restore outright. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that the latest article went through Page Curation, and you marked it as reviewed. [10] Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lankiveil wasn't reluctant to userfy the article. I had been requesting Lankiveil's help to fix the article, whom just informed me today, that they have been busy and hadn't been able review the userfied article I had. That's fine, they can take as long as they need to. The thing I'm asking to get userfied, is the most recent revision of the article, theone that BeachParadise made, which you deleted from the mainspace. I liked some of the tweaks BeachParadise made, which is why I marked it as reviewed. Though it did not belong in the mainspace yet, and I am fine with your decision to delete it. I am requesting that current revision on my userspace, so that way I and a few other editors can continue to work on it. Again, I'm going to add a notice to inform users not to move it to the mainspace, so that way this doesn't happen again. Smile Lee (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Never mind I found a Webcite archive, and a Google cache too, of the article. kthanxbye. Smile Lee (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Cat Creek[edit]

Hi Dennis, sorry if you already know this. But I came across a sock of CatCreek today, User: Return of the creek. The user n question was blocked already, but perhaps the account/userpage must be tagged as a sock? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • This is one of those I will usually avoid tagging simply because it is obvious, and some of these socks LIKE having their socks tagged as a badge of honor, over how many times they have vandalized, etc. We generally don't in these limited accounts due to the wisdom in WP:DENY. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, alright. I thought tagging would make sense so people know what kind of edits occur. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavia C. Gernatt[edit]

Any chance you might consider closing this? It was part of the whole Carriearchdale thing. The reason I am asking is although it has been open only 6 days, It was initiated in bad faith, and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus. The only delete was by Carrie, the nominator, and the rest seems pretty evenly split between keep and merge to her husband's article. It has also been edited for clarity 3 times and the whole mess is just that, a mess. Perhaps you could close it as no consensus and get it over for the greater good? John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I voted to block her, so some might see that as "involved". You might try asking DangerousPanda, who closed that discussion as uninvolved. He is on a "close" rampage tonight. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I would have closed it myself, but I voted both at ANI and AfD, so I too am involved. I'll ask the Panda. John from Idegon (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you check on this?[edit]

Somebody just created an article Palam Kalyanasundaram. I had this on my watchlist as a redlink; I believe that's because it was deleted several times before, and I was suspicious that somebody might try to recreate it. But it was some time ago so I can't remember details. Obviously I don't have access to past deletion information; can you check on it? No rush. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Tagging it for speedy. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Note[edit]

On a whim, I took off for the NC/SC beach for at least a few days with only the smartphone. Don't expect to see me for a bit. Need an adventure so hopped in the car and here I am. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Have fun! --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Honey Baked Ham[edit]

Yes, they're back to redirecting it to the generic ham article, if you want to keep your eyes back on the most ridiculous rd war we have to deal with. Nate (chatter) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)