This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Dennis, could you please have a look at -and stop their disruption if you agree with me- the user (Inspectortr, redlink as usual) and its IP(s) of a "Sock Family" (or "Duck" Family) at the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan article? (These guys normally fly over the Mediterranean but here they are on another mission...) Thanks in advance and best. --E4024 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Does "being here longer than one" mean they cannot have socks or be sockpuppets? At the same article they are using two other IPs. Only three of the same person in one article... Remember the case of Ghuzz and TremoloKid? These guys will be older and longer than any one here; because they have opened various accounts and also use IPs. If you do not believe me ask 23x2 or Masri145. BTW if you and other experienced people tried to make WP more user friendly (at least for the older generation) I would disturb you friends less. I already tried to open an SPI case but I cannot tackle with so many templates. (I grew up with milk and books; not coke and PC. :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis - hope your well. Just a note to let you know I mentioned a small discussion/Q I asked you in this talkpage post - regards - Youreallycan 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping you would be able to take a relatively new editor under your wing or suggest another Editor Retention editor does so. If you have a look at the contributions record and the talk page you will see that there is an editor who has strong opinions, currently against consensus, and who appears to be handling this in a counter-productive manner and becoming increasingly frustrated. Their opinion, even against consensus, may well be right. To me the area they are disputing is borderline, and, probably, hardly worth the passion loads of people are putting into it. To me "source it and add it, otherwise leave it alone" is a pragmatic view. You may have a different opinion.
I'm asking you because you seem good at these things. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Will file it when I get some time, any thoughts on BStudent0 (talk·contribs) who is clearly a sock, just can't quite work out whos ? Mtking (edits) 19:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
also :
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'll state this though I fear stirring up another hornet's nest. If there is any interest in reopening an SPI regarding a link between P4P and Bigz, there may be evidence available to show a connection though not one that can be openly posted. I e-mailed Dennis about it not long after the last SPI was closed. It seems there is more obvious links in the last couple months. Dennis, if you want me to e-mail the new evidence to you or to someone else, let me know. Otherwise, I'll slink back to my largely lurking habits. ;) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere You said...
....I started WP:WEP with the goal of finding ways to minimize the damage and prevent as much as possible. As far as working with newbies, that is as good a purpose as can be found at Wikipedia, and is part of the Editor Retention program as well.. I was just following your lead. Buster7 aka B7 aka Fuzzball.
You are still on my christmas card list. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
True. But..when they were litle tykes, I taught my kids not to go play in traffic and certainly not to convince their new friends to do the same. I used to work Security and when the "white shirts" didn't back me up it made me cringe. Luckily, like Barney Fife, my gun didn't have any bullets.
Happy Halloween. I like your costume. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Give me a shout if your IP editor returns when the protection is over. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
A slight issue
John Carter and I are currently working on the Arb. request, as you asked. Something which you may have noticed has cropped up on the WP:RIGHT talk page today: a statement about the founding of a “WikiProject Left-wing activism”. While this doesn’t exist at the moment, it might be worth to keep an eye out. RGloucester (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
So it's a little bit depressing, I learned about the Port Royal Experiment in class so I tried to find more on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia didn't have an article so I started working on one. For some reason now I discovered that a bad article exists at Port Royal Experiment. I have no idea why I couldn't find it earlier. I have no intention of using the existing article's structure, style, or words and I'd prefer to continue my work in my userspace so I can get it ready for DYK. What should I do after that? Can a history merge be conducted? RyanVesey 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
If you are completely rewriting the article and not using any existing anything, and all the new wording is yours alone with no other helps, then you just make one edit over the old article and replace the entire content. A complete rewrite via copy/paste from user space. Or I can do a history merge which would preserve all the individual edits and the edit counts would go toward article space instead of user space, although I am not sure how that affects DYK since it has all the edits and dates, so on "paper" it will look like it isn't a "new" expansion but instead took a month. Dr. Blofeld might know that, he deals with DYK a lot.
Hey Dennis. Hate to interrupt your vacation but. we have another person who wishes to re-litigate the same paragraphs about Jimmy Henchman under Jeffrey Lichtman (Jimmy Henchman's past lawyer). This person is accusing me of copyright violation, which is incorrect. (We know that the argument for censorship on this point changes forms. We've been through several of these with shifting and various arguments for censoring the truth of the matter. I know you were quite involved and helpful as were many others vetting all the articles and sources on which the history was based. I know you're busy and hate to ask but would you mind getting back to me when you have a second. Perhaps you could take a look at what this person wrote on my talk page and did to my careful, original, and well-researched few lines about Lichtman's client Jimmy Henchman and the outcome of the case that was on his Wikipedia page. Not adding the few lines I added (and have been sourced litigated) makes the article quite misleading. Thanks, ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Dennis, this is my fault, and I've apologized and commented on Scholarlyarticles's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Scholarly certainly knows the material better than most, and Bbb23 is my "go to" person when it comes to BLP concerns, so I'm confident you both can work it out. And I wish it was vacation. Real world has been busy, and I've been ordered to take a wikibreak by a fellow editor (who shall remain nameless) for being much grumpier than usual, so the timing is good as well. I still check in and do some minor stuff, I just don't have enough contiguous time to get into deep and complicated issues, and it wouldn't be fair to my fellow editors to play "hit and run" admin.
Dennis, I had taken some of my concerns about edits by Nonconnah77 (talk·contribs) to WP:BLPN a while back, but didn't get any response. I want to have another person look at it. I don't want to edit war on the articles that Nonconnah77 is editing, but it just seems like an SPA that is bent on pushing an opinion/agenda over several articles. Now, the issue he pushes might have some relevance on some of the articles, but he is basically going around Wikipedia to any mention of Timothy Tyson, Blood Done Sign My Name and Henry Marrow and putting in jabs/controversial info. See the recent edits on the Shelby, North Carolina page. This article is barely tangential to the book. Some of the info he puts in might be ok, I am not really sure. Most of it is soapboxing, though. Please take a look, when you get a chance, at their edits and comments on the articles and my talk pages. I didn't know what noticeboard to go to next (Reliable sources? Incidents? or if it is just a content dispute between Nonconnah77 and I that needs resolution). Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I did a quick (and possibly incomplete) cleanup pass. Everything I saw had WP:NPOV and/or WP:OR problems, and that's before taking up the WP:RS issues. GaramondLethe 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Dennis,
I have communicated with user JoannaSerah about the Master Thesis, and I understand her point.
In reference to Blood Done Sign My Name,
Tyson / Jeb Stuart are allowed to promote and advertise Blood Done Sign My Name on somewhere between 6-8 pages thru out Wikipedia.
What I don't understand is I have pointed out that the author / screenwriter and the media are lying about Henry Marrow's military status.
The book and DVD are clearly advertising a Vietnam Veteran. That information can be seen on the P.O.W. Network along with the media coverage stating Vietnam Veteran.
It's obvious no fact checking was done on the book or DVD, and there was no fact checking from the media. Someone has to be accountable for stating an Vietnam Veteran. The accountability has to fall back to two individuals, Tyson and Jeb Stuart.
Here is my argument. The P.O.W. Network shows advertising of a Vietnam Veteran and shows the military records of Henry Marrow where he never served in Vietnam.
And most of my edits were ( Public information has revealed a character in Blood Done Sign My Name is not a Vietnam Veteran. The P.O.W. Network states the last place he was at was CorrHoldingDET ( SFW21BVU ) FtLeavenworthKS. He was confined at Leavenworth. He received a dishonorable discharge. He never served in Vietnam.[4] The media coverage is reporting the military status to the public incorrectly.[5] )
Tyson and Jeb Stuart are advertising a deceased person as a Vietnam Veteran. There are rules and regulations governing "written" material under The Stolen Valor Act.
It has been confirmed that Henry Marrow was not a Vietnam Veteran.
So now I'm talking with a Wikipedia Representative that I hope can make a unbiased decision and weigh the information fairly. My information should be allowed or do a speedy delete with anything concerning Blood Done Sign My Name on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not allow or give unlimited access to Tyson and Jeb Stuart for self - promoting and advertising to deceive the public.
The P.O.W Network shows a picture of the DVD promoting / advertising a Vietnam Veteran. You can "see it and read it" Vietnam Veteran in the newspaper articles. So I don't think this fabrication needs to be discussed in length, and I don't think a think group needs to be involved.
When you can see and read Vietnam Veteran I'm pretty sure that a 100 % of the public would believe that to be a true fact.
The question is does Wikipedia have any responsibility to the public?
Just a note here, considering that the Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court, that part of the discussion is moot and really kind of borders on legal threat. I will let others reply as to the content of your suggestion. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
. Dennis, I don’t know what’s going on but your attention is needed immediately.
I have tried to be patience, but now changes are being made by user Darouet.
There are two things going on here, Wikipedia is now showing a change made on Henry Marrow’s Wikipedia page by user Darouet that Henry Marrow served in Vietnam with a newspaper source that was not verified. Wikipedia is now showing that Henry is a Vietnam Veteran and also showing that he was not a Vietnam Veteran. You can’t have it both ways.
The Freedom of Information Act would be more reliable than a newspaper article.
2 user Darouet also added living persons names back to Wikipedia. I believe this is in violation of Wikipedia rules about living persons.
I would appreciate your prompt attention. Nonconnah77 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonconnah77 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I am reading too much into this, but the latest from the Beatles sockmaster seems to me to perhaps cross the legal line into a physical threat. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed in one of your comments that you seem to believe that our ban policy dictates some sort of maximum block term against IPs. In the case of [1], for example, you took a block in an escalating pattern of (72 hours, one week, three months, one year) and reset it to one month, despite it being an apparently static IP long held by a banned user. What prompted you to do that?—Kww(talk) 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who made a particularly difficult decision or performed a tedious but needed admin task. Like, writing an article. (Barnstar for statistical purposes.) Drmies (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Question about DYK.
Dennis, do you have a lot of experience with suggesting a DYK? I just created the article for NC's first poet laureate Arthur Talmage Abernethy and there are a couple of points that might be DYK? worthy (at least, I think). Which, if any, do you think I should suggest:
he earned his A.B. degree from Rutherford College, but was denied the degree at first because of his age.
was professor of Latin at Rutherford College for several years beginning at age 14.
I've not done a DYK? before, so I was just looking to find out if you thought any of those would be noteworthy enough for that and how to go about it. I've looked at the nomination page, but still a little uncertain. If none really work, that's fine. It was just a thought. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I will keep watch and see. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Question on article title
I was doing some readings for class when I learned about the "Nigger Hollow mines". An article didn't exist, so I decided to start one. While researching the Wikipedia article, I learned of some mines operated by the company St. Louis & O'Fallon Coal Co called the "St. Louis & O'Fallon mines" that were numbered in the same way. I couldn't find anything definitive to show that they were the same mines until I read this. With that in mind, what would you name the article? Per the source, and per the naming of the mines in readings I've done, "Nigger Hollow" seems to clearly be the most common, if unofficial name. "St. Louis & O'Fallon" is only used in an official (usually government) capacity. The question becomes, how do I apply WP:COMMONNAME. Within the section, it says "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic" but directly follows that up with "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name". So is using the word "Nigger" considered vulgar? Other articles like Nigger (1964 book) use it. If it is considered vulgar, what takes preference, "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic" or that they should use the clearly common name? If I go with the common name, I'll need you (or another admin) to move the article for me sometime soon. If I choose the latter, I'll probably need some redirects created. RyanVesey 20:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll continue referring to it in the text as Nigger Hollow and I'll try to make one last determination once I finish the article (maybe I'll find 1000 articles mentioning St. Louis & O'Fallon (or Black Eagle mine, another name for mine 2)). RyanVesey 21:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Lost Nigger Gold Mine was on the main page and seems to have survived without incident. As long as the name is genuinely the name in common use and it's clear you're not just using it for shock value I can't see a problem - readers can understand the concept of "people in other times had different ideas of what was appropriate". Mogism (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
A question
Hi Dennis, hope things are well with you. I have a question (it's not urgent or anything) about a situation I've become somewhat involved in. IP 98.193.61.234, see their contribs has been harrassing Mr.choppers off and on and has now received a second block for doing so. The IP's most recent edit has left me wondering if this could be a case of sockpuppetry. After all, the IP claims to have made many contributions over half a decade, however the contributions page shows only a small amount and most of it quite recent. Of course, it is possible that somebody has simply had their IP change, but it is also possible that somebody is editing without logging in to avoid the consequences of poor behavior. Since I really don't know what should be done in this case, I'd appreciate your input. AutomaticStrikeout 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll ask choppers. AutomaticStrikeout 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Reminder: Wikipedia Loves Libraries Atlanta event - November 17
Hello Dennis: I wanted to give you a reminder for the Wikipedia Loves Libraries event that is scheduled for November 17. If you have signed up as tentative, please visit the meetup page and confirm your participation. I look forward to seeing you there. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, could you please take a look at the work of User:Ghost rider14, who resembles a blocked user that you acted on a while back. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. There's still an open question on WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yattum of whether Ghost rider14 is blocked user Jetijonez. CU only said it is "possible" but what about the behavioral evidence? Would welcome your opinion. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis - Would you please fully protect my new edit notice - User_talk:Youreallycan/Editnotice - I don't need to further edit it and don't see that any others users need to edit it - also feel free to give me some feedback on the wording, here or via email - thank you - Youreallycan 04:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Youreallycan, regarding full protection - editnotices in userspace can only be edited by the user, admins and account creators, so full protection it will only prevent you and account creators from editing it. The chances of an account creator wanting to edit, and doing so without checking with you are fairly small, so really it's only stopping you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ow - thank you Callanecc - not really needed then - request retracted - many regards - Youreallycan 05:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought that as well; however, I am none of those and I am allowed to edit it. I think it is because it is in the user talk namespace. RyanVesey 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah - ok - then could you fully protect it for me Dennis? Youreallycan 15:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
How about this: if you put your editnotice into a .js subpage (like User:Youreallycan/editnotice.js or whatever) and then transclude it on your regular editnotice page, we can fully protect it without you being locked out, as only you and admins will be able to edit the .js page. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Created - I did transclude something once but forget how, can you remind me Writ Keeper please - Youreallycan 16:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep: just put the name of the page you're transcluding in double brackets curly braces, like a template. I've gone ahead and done it for you, and I'll protect the page too. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, created, transcluded, and protected. You should be good to go; you can still make any changes you like to your editnotice by editing User:Youreallycan/editnotice.js. Let me know if you need anything else. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks Writ Keeper - Youreallycan 17:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I saw somewhere that you're (maybe) considering running for Arbcom. If you decide against running, I think you would be a good choice for the electoral commission, if you'd be so inclined : ) - jc37 04:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dennis, hope all is well. Need an admin close on an uncontroversial AfD (listed above). It's essentially a SNOW Keep with the last !vote being on November 6, the AfD itself was created on November 5. Since there hasn't been any action on the AfD since the 6th, I don't think anyone would mind if it were closed a day early. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, it should be closed after the full 7 days tomorrow. But knowing Wikipedia, it probably won't for some reason. :D Hope you have a good Sunday. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dennis, just wanted to let you know, the AfD was closed by a non-admin with the result "Keep as per positive consensus that affirms the article's notability as per WP:BROADCAST standards. A non-admin closure." Which is pretty much what we all expected. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, not sure if you're busy or not but someone has maliciously reported me, accusing me of being a 'Sockpuppet'. Basically I've been editting using my IP for many months now, and recently posted on a deletion topic debate and another user has singled me out for doing so. Most of my time on Wikipedia lately has been devoted to editting the Amazing Race China Rush 3 page, and I have provided about 90 percent of the content of the page, before that I made a random edit here and there on random Amazing Race pages but mostly just updated the tv show ratings for random American shows. The user he is accusing me of has editted pages that are nothing like the ones I have editted and the guy appears to be from the Phillipines yet I myself am British. I have never broken any rules on here and have always been respectful to others. Would you mind looking at this page please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aquarius2 I would love this issue resolved ASAP as I find it unfair that someone is trying to single me out and accuse me of something I haven't done. Thankyou 86.15.195.205 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm just clicking a button to remove it quickly. There were no attacks, I merely pointed out that the editor is anti-MMA. No attacks there. I've asked that Mtking leave me alone, so if he/she keeps quiet, there's no issue. Paralympiakos(talk) 23:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There was no personal attack involved. You could argue that it was an ad hominem argument, but it still doesn't come close to a personal attack. Furthermore, if you do have an anti-mma bias, that information is relevant. I haven't checked to see if that is indeed the case, and Paralympiakos presented his argument in a poor way. In addition, this generic warning without even a link to where the "personal attack" occurred was not a good idea on your part. Reverting it as vandalism was not correct, but nothing should be done about it. RyanVesey 23:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It is an ad hominem argument, which is explicitly listed in the WP:WIAPA section as an attack, it is commenting on the contributor and not on the content which is the whole point of the WP:NPA policy. Mtking (edits) 23:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
To just add one further argument in my favour, NPA would be if I said "Mtking is a stupid (expletive) who should be ignored". Ad homineum would be if I said "Mtking likes cricket, so their opinion on MMA is irrelevant". Rational argument would be what I did. Another example would be if I said that a Christian extremist campaigned for the removal of the wiki page for gravity. Obviously personal bias would make it a ludicrous deletion candidate. Granted, that's an extreme example, but that was the argument I was making. However, Mtking should not have readded the warning to my page after I clearly requested they not post on my talk page again. My talk page is my own and if I wish to use twinkle to quickly get rid of the harassing nonsense, I'm permitted to do so. Thank you. Paralympiakos(talk) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
In the future, can you use Twinkle's AGF button or something other than the vandalism button in the future? RyanVesey 23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that WP:WIAPA says "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" RyanVesey
If you don't have a conflict of interest, then point out how he his argument was incorrect rather than running around screaming NPA. RyanVesey 00:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, basically saying "ignore all his edits because he's an X" is extremely uncivil - the chilling effect of putting a community "shunning" on an editor is wholly inappropriate. What's next, a scarlet letter? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi D, noting that you are someone who couldn't get in a fight if he travelled with Napoleon to WaterlooTM: Drmies, do you think that I should be converting Talk:Jatt_Sikh#Article_title_seems_wrong into a formal requested move discussion or similar? It may seem bizarre but I've never found myself in a position where I instigated a discussion about an article title and faced a challenge, so I am not sure of the protocol. I am wondering if perhaps a neutrally-phrased announcement at WT:INB would suffice? - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Plenty of food for thought there! I particularly like the idea of exposing some poor soul to the blood that flows around contentious Indic subjects, although I doubt that it would be seemly for me to approach any of them to request a close. Doing so would likely just stoke up any accusations, so if it were close then a note at WP:AN requesting a closer might be the way to go. I could invite a non-admin in that note, as I am sure that potential RfA candidates (should) keep an eye on AN.
Anyways, I'll see what happens over the next couple of days, have a ponder in the interval and then, if necessary, do something along the lines you suggest. Much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Text or table?
Do you think the text at User:Ryan Vesey/Temp#Mine no. 1 and the next section would be better presented in a table? I like to use text as much as possible, but it's easy to lose your place reading that and a lot of it is repetitive. Is there a better way to organize it? RyanVesey 17:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Tables, absolutely no question about it. MalleusFatuorum 17:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep. I did a lot of work on this article for instance, an FA that uses a table to list the casualties of the event. MalleusFatuorum 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting discussion; I'm a fan of tables for some types of information, but had this nagging feeling that the writing experts might prefer prose. I'm happy to see that experts feel that tables are best in some situations. Now to make sure I don't translate that into "use tables whenever possible".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice from the both of you. The table works great in the Peterloo Massacre article. What do you guys think about the appropriateness of the death section as I've included it? Personally, I feel that the information is important to the history of the mines, but I fear that some will argue that mining deaths were common and shouldn't be reported on individually. Is there a policy argument against that? If worst comes to worst, I'll use it as an external link. In addition, is it preferable to use a different primary source for each of the deaths (if I can find it) than mark the one source as being for the whole table? RyanVesey 01:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that fix, I was wondering what to do about it. I feel like the primary source I mentioned has that type of information, the only problem is it's not searchable. I might see if I can get Penn to get it for me. RyanVesey 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I didn't mention the source, [3]. RyanVesey 02:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
half.com is also a great source for used books. I have an inventory of about 400 for sale. Ive also purchased some of my best reference-type books from "half". ```Buster Seven Talk 08:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Should I scrap the information on wife and children and just leave the last column for the source? The column is only fitting two words a line. My initial source stopped working so I'm using the cached copy to help but then finding the actual copy to mark as my source. RyanVesey 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Need guidance
Remember me? I am in a similar quandary again, only this time I have not even used - let alone abuse - the access that has been revoked. Please check my talk and tell me what to do. What did I ever do to deserve this? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 14:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I seriously believe you and I am sure he is rational guy. But, you, my friend, are imputing such things to me which I never asserted in the first place. On how many pages do I have to repeat myself?
I, not he, put forth this page as reference. He didn't make it clear where he saw me claim that I do not take responsibility. If you had just read what I wrote in reply to him on my talk you would have gotten it crystal clear. It is just a misunderstanding, that's all. Also, I never asked you override anything. Didn't I ask you to check my talk and tell mewhat to do? Then where does the overriding come in? Anyway, I again repeat: I didn't say I do not take responsibility. I take responsibility for anything that comes with the tool, but if someone asks me to change/modify the tool itself, that I do not know how to do. Modifying the tool itself is not within the purview of my knowledge. Hence I wrote that I am not the guy one should be complaining to about the wording of the warning messages (this is different from edit summary which can be and has been customized). Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No comment on anything else, but I'm pretty sure that if you AGF revert with STIki, it won't warn the editor being reverted. Hope this helps Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
@Dennis: You're right I should have picked words more carefully, you do not need to do anymore, your appreciation as an editor is more than enough. I sincerely thank you.
What should I do now, Sir?
@Callanecc: thanks for your comment. It does help. But the issue is, I don't think anybody has any problem with STiki, not me at least. I like the warning messages, and like notifying users that I reverted their edit. This gives them a chance to get back to me or improve their edits or re-add the deleted data with sources. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 08:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
New user "Letmewatchthis7"
Be double-plus good, and you have nothing to worry about.
Came and began removing all references to Turks in Persian-related articles. I am not sure if we are facing a new Qatarihistorian case... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Poor "Letmewatchthis7" has fast achieved fame with only 3 (three) edits in WP, thanks to your popularity among TP Stalkers. He/she will never feel easy to get involved in edit wars or anything of the kind, as all the eyes will be on them... :-)
Done, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
And another one appeared to carry on edit-warring, and make personal attacks in edit summaries, on article talk page and on IRWolfie's editor review page. Diffs provided at newly filed SPI. Thanks. ~~
WikiProject Conservatism
Damn, I forgot to tell you this earlier. My obvious mistake. Honestly, I ain't that familiar with setting up RfArbs myself, particularly not in a case like this. If you look at DGG's talk page, you'll see that I tried to get some help from him myself. He reasonably declined. So far as I can tell, having looked over the history, about the only really likely result I can see is that, maybe, Lionelt might get sanctioned. Of course, he's retired, so it probably doesn't mean much, and I think with the election having not gone what I think is his way he may well remain such. DGG basically said watch it, see what happens, and, maybe, get involved as appropriate. There is a bit of a history of WikiProjects being deleted, but, honestly, that is not real likely in this case. If it goes inactive, then a merger could take place. Personally, at this point, that seems really likely. I know you talked with Elen about this, and she indicated that it might be possible for ArbCom to take the case anyway. Kirill I know has been peripherally involved in at least one of the earlier WikiProject deletions. If you want me to go ahead with the filing, I will, given a few days to really work on it, but, honestly, I at this point really think it would probably be declined. Sorry again for the delay in responding. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics] does exist actually, and is more or less organized to be the "umbrella" project for the field, like MILHIST became under Kirill and like I have myself tried to do with most of the Christianity related projects. Personally, I think one way to go might be to just find who the active "leaders" are there, and maybe see if they want to perhaps go ahead and "tag" the various Conservatism articles with the Politics banner as well. Theoretically, there's no real basis for their complaining. That would get some of the Politics editors involved as well. Then, if the project really does become moribund, a merger would be a lot easier, with the other project already involved. I don't see any sort of clear "leader" of any sort from the Politics talk page, but maybe the best approach might be to post the idea to them? Bots can add a second banner really easily, and that might be at least the first step toward a form of defacto merge, even if they do remain, officially, separate. If there were someone who was very highly regarded about this subject, like Kirill and Roger over at MILHIST, they might be the people who could now start things so that, maybe in a year or so, the two could be formally merged without controversy. I could help on project banner details, if it comes to that. I can also try to find the various encyclopedias which relate directly to politics. If the Politics project can clearly show a comparatively neutral viewpoint and more effective organization after Lionelt's departure, that would probably be the best thing to help a merger along. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Not only has this editor continued to revert, but also stalk me on DAB pages. From the sheer number of articles this editor has wreaked havoc across, protections won't work because (s)he may find more. See a similar issue I faced continually earlier this year. GotRTalk 05:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I know you are apparently busy right now, but I would like to ask you to at least be willing to consider this idea. There has been so much talk about the RfA/RfB process and whether or not it is doomed. I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if you ran for cratship. I think it is fairly obvious to just about anyone applying common sense that you are one of our most level-headed admins and there is no reason to believe that would change if you were given cratship. If you went through an RfB, it could be very informative and helpful to those analyzing the situation in determining if the process is truly doomed. In other words, if you can't make it through an RfB, probably nobody can. AutomaticStrikeout 20:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply. AutomaticStrikeout 20:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame you don't think Arb will happen. I've looked over the areas you seem to tend to like to patrol, and dispute resolution would seem to be an area you're not bad at. But of course, people are welcome to contribute in the ways they are comfortable with : ) - jc37 17:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom elections - Rfa times 10, without the associated discussion....lol
Sooo, I can understand your hesitance (I've had similar wonderings myself).
But I think, from my look over your contribs, and what I've seen others say about you (in particular how respected you appear to be as an regular AN/I closer) that you would likely do fairly well in the elections. Course, I'm more interested in the good work you would do after being elected : )
I won't pretend to know all that goes on behind the scenes in Arbcom, but it seems that it's essentially like an extended consensual discussion that is ongoing, which culminates in what they finally decide to "vote" on-wiki.
But nod, from everything I've seen, it will take a chunk out of your wiki-time. (I have heard several say that they needed to set limits and restrictions on themselves on how much time in each part of the wiki they would attend, else arbcom threatened to consume all their time.) But I have no concerns that you have that self-discipline.
Anyway, no I'm not gonna browbeat you to try to get you to run (as if that could work : )
But I just would like you to further consider it : ) - jc37 18:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a trap, Dennis. Notice the cookies and warm hot chocolate just inside the door? Stay free like the wild stallion that you are. (Ok...maybe frisky pony is a better desciption). ```Buster Seven Talk 18:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Rofl, I was like, edit conflict? Then I read it and my computer almost wore the cookies and milk : ) - jc37 18:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Here
Can you look at The Genius Me from a not here standpoint? The user hasn't been too disruptive other than messing with my userpage a little bit. Their talk page is covered with things from other users' user pages. (That's probably how mine got messed up). RyanVesey 03:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
So, I've still got a ways to go with the current table and the prose, but I'm curious about how much statistical information is appropriate for the article. I have the information to create a table listing the number of deaths and non-fatal injuries every year. I also have information that could list various stats for the mines (How many tons were mined, how many people were employed, how many days the mine operated , aggregate value of total product, etc.) My worry is that the tables will become much longer than the prose in my article. RyanVesey 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, you are one of a few who actually grow their sense of humor. Good for you. I am going to get to work, and then I'll have a look at that masterpiece. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ha, wait--you weren't joking. Alright then, Mr. Serious Partner, I'll have a critical look. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You're my kind of guy Dennis! If you're ever in Philadelphia, I have an exquisite '79 Pugligny Montrachet; I'd say we have a window of a few more years before it's past its prime. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined as moot. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis. If you could possibly protect the above article, I think that would be helpful, due to persistent vandalism of the usual school type. Also you may wish to consider revdel on this diff, due to students, presumably minors being mentioned in a not to good way. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This bit of humour is in no way a reflection on the awesome nice-ness of the gift
So I helped out at Wikipedia and all I got was.... : ) - jc37 01:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
@Dennis: Thank the Foundation for giving away free t-shirts, not me. @Jc37: perhaps Dennis can get a t-shirt that looks like this one. :^) David1217What I've done 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That said, not sure how to do that from where it was moved.
You're welcome to try, or even just a suggestion of how-to
And if you think it should be reverted, I'm fine with that. I started to try to fix the indent formatting (we kinda stopped all possibility of neutral numbering), and in reading it over it looked a bit like more of a discussion regarding adminship in general. :But it can be a fine line, and I have no problem with it being undone. - jc37 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No no, no reason to revert. My comment was to help, not to criticize or remove the efforts. I agree that we need admin to clerk RfA. I think it would be better to have an admin that wasn't participating in the RfA, like other boards, but the moves you made weren't controversial. (I've worked with others on the idea of clerking, off wiki, something I know you don't like) The best idea I had was the small font idea
Thanks for the suggestions. "small" was a good idea (and is used elsewhere, I can tell I'm sleepy today : )
I added the note to the rfa, but I think the header itself on the talk page probably makes clear where the thread came from.
Oh, and as an aside, I'm a fan of transparency. but I don't have a problem with email for privacy reasons, non-wikipedia-related reasons, and to a minor extent, to avoid a statement which could embarrass someone else on wiki. That last being another fine line, of course...
You could try "bare drinking"?
(You wouldn't believe the weird emails I've received. My favourite is from when I was less active for awhile - actually got emails asking me to donate my "admin account" to some "cause". I notified arbcom about it as I recall...
Anyway, thanks again : ) - jc37 03:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey. This AFD has been higly contentious but on a very interesting way. I made an NAC and got restricted at ANI to make them after the nominator reverted my close and started the thread. After the complete 7 days of discussion, another non-admin closed the discussion only to be reverted again by the nominator. 8 days past, no delete votes [only keeps], I guess this is time enough for that AFD to be closed. I'd thank you very much if you take a look at it and give me your thoughts. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I only glanced at the ANI, which admittedly did seem a bit rushed, but I don't have enough information to have an educated opinion on the the ANI handling itself. Perhaps that can be revisited in the future, and I will be happy to look at it then if you like, but I can't think of anything I could do to help at this time. As to the AFD, I would have recommended against closing it for several of reasons. 1. There was some contention, even if it didn't show up in the votes. 2. I'm against early closures in general (admin close or NAC), excepting when the nominator withdraws and there is zero contention, or there is a dozen keep votes and no contention. 3. I'm generally against NAC at AfD and strongly recommend against it to all the future admin I mentor. As a rule, I won't revert NACs unless they are flatly wrong, and don't have a problem with them so much, I just don't recommend them, particularly for future admin as they don't demonstrate "admin skills" and have a great chance of coming back to bite you in the ass at RfA. It isn't a question of skills, it just isn't in the future admin's best interest. This is based on my participation in over 1600 AfDs, which is where I cut my teeth at during the dark years at AFD, 2006-2008. In case you don't know, 1600 is an extraordinary number of AFDs to have participated in, yet in 6 years without the admin bit, I don't think I ever closed one. (The stats mistakenly show 4, but those were after becoming an admin)
I think you had the right conclusion, that it was going to end up in a Keep, there really isn't a question about that. The problem is the politics of it. Theopolisme was reverted at close at well, and in that instance, it had run the full time and there really wasn't a lot of question about the outcome, but Till still managed to cause some unneeded drama with the 2nd revert. I see Bwilkins has already closed this as well.
Well, yes. I can consider myself a deletionist, although I saved several articles when I considered it worth to. I thank you very much for all the feedback you gave me here. It will help me a lot in the future :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Dennis - careful, User:Hahc21 is prohibited from NAC's on any Wikipedia forum right now :-) Someone might cross an RFC close with a NAC and hit the block button. I think they should tread lightly for awhile (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was only asking Dennis to take a look at the AFD, not at the ANI thread. I am not revisiting that restriction anytime soon neither will vote on any AFD or participate in any AFD from now on, but that's not the point. All I wanted was the AFD closed, as 8 days have passed. Now that you, Bwilkins, had closed it, there's nothing else to say, I guess. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, now after what happened, I don't recommend NACs either. I may take a look at RFPP and work there :) Thanks for your comments, Dennis. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yo, DB, User:WinkaDinka was blocked as a VOA by Edgar181. He posted two unblock requests, the first of which was declined, and the second of which was...pretty bad. I revdeled the second unblock request and removed talk page access; as an uninvolved admin, can you take a look and make sure I did the right thing (both technically and policy-wise)? First time I've done something like this. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 18:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I was wrestling a bit about the revdel; the thing that swung me is that, while he doesn't name names, he makes it clear he's talking about specific real-life people, and the specific people he's talking about are indicated by his (also revdeled) contribs. I'll hold fire on the revdel next time (ugh) and get a second opinion, just in case. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔ 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown, given the way this was left at the Administrators' Noticeboard, I thought it appropriate to drop you a note re: the restoration of this page [5]. Best, JNW (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted it and, in view of your final warning, indef-blocked. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, she was given an ample sufficiency of ROPE. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. Yet I won't be surprised if this recurs under a new account [6]. Judging from the user's brief edit history, initiated with a full-blown article earlier this year, I'd guess this is someone who knows their way around the premises. JNW (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Amen. Feel free to revert.... JNW (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Andrea
There are much more then two articles like I noticed there a 5 articles pretty much not connected to each other.[7]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Here we go...
I've created the nomination, it's [8]. Thanks in advance. I'll let Anthony know too. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm also around all day, I'll let you know once Anthony's done it. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Boomerang
For what it's worth, your comment here deserves to find its way back to you. I shall assist seeing to it. In short, I feel confident the community would benefit if you were on the committee too. I hope it is something you have given consideration! That's all I could ask anyway, and I am asking. My76Strat (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dennis, I saw you were involved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bt8257/Archive, so I thought I'd ping you on how to proceed since I didnt see my question covered at WP:SPI or WP:SOCK. I'm suspecting Bt8257 and User:SNIyer12 are connected based on the massive overlap of sports rivalry edits, not to mention random subjects like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harry S. Truman, Joseph McCarthy,Juan Perón, etc. Since they both already have SPI cases, is it worth doing a CU to link them, or its enough to do the WP:DUCKTEST? How do we merge cases as far as tagging their specific roles as master/puppet?—Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
On a related subject with SNIyer12, AngelsandDevils (talk·contribs) is also quacking with these overlaps. What's usually done if there is no obvious disruptive behavior (yet?). Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No prob. I'll just add add that the obsession with rivalry related articles for such a broad array of teams and sports is quite rare IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
SNIyer/AngelsandDevils is weaker (NY only), but the Bt8257/SNIyer12 does span sports and cities. My bad for commingling the two cases. I'll take it up with AuburnPilot. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A POV-pushing problem
Hi Dennis, can you or one of your talk page stalkers take a look at this problem: PESO44, who has already been blocked once for harassment, is pushing a pro-Islam POV at this article and another editor has improperly used rollback at least once to keep improper content in the article. Rather then continuing an edit war, I'll bring it here for resolution. AutomaticStrikeout 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The content is on NPOV, judging on someone won't be a harassment.--PESO44 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Peso44, you have been reintroducing copyvio as well as POV material. Do not restore the content again. RyanVesey 00:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a full-time stalker (just watching after my post above). I'll assume PESO44 was not aware of our edit warring policy and have warned them and provided some relevant links. I trust a consensus will be reached on the article talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The situation is worse than you think. See the discussion on the talk page. This is unquestionably POV pushing considering the original vandalism [12] that made the change. RyanVesey 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't lead me to believe PESO is listening. AutomaticStrikeout 01:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)As an uninvolved editor, I have to agree with this edit. The reverted edit plagiarizes the PressTV report, against WP:COPYVIO. Peso44, I don't know who you are, but you are violating copyright, and I will report you to the administrators myself if you continue to post copyrighted material. You also altered a quote, and we do not alter quotes. "Money hungry," "propagandist," and "unislamic" are judgemental terms that are highly non-neutral and therefore something a neutral encyclopedia avoids. It was also incorrect to call AutomaticStrikeout's edit vandalism. I've placed the article on my watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Confused editor, more confusing to onlookers but really is nothing. Hatting to prevent confusing, not to deny or hide.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where did he accuse you of sockpuppeting? AutomaticStrikeout 01:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was weird. You can't see it (except for in the main talk page history), but an IP above removed a complaint about a sockpuppet situation that I think has something to do with this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dustinliu76/Archive. Then, Dustinliu76 came and removed their complaint here. AutomaticStrikeout 01:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually created another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinliu76 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Kaz was blocked at 6 October 2012 due to for disruptive editing of his POV on page Crimean Karaites
Please compare Kaz'slast versions with posted by BudoKaraite Folk page commented by him as""Independently corroborated brief summary of information from the 6 volume Karaite Folk Encyclopedia". Obviously the versions are almost identical.
In Talk:Karaite Folk page he claims that does not accept Kaz's blocking ,motivating it as personal issues between Kaz and other editors.
Probably Budo misunderstands the meaning of Crimean Karaites (Karaim) term (ethnic group having origin from Crimea but leaving all over the word). The issue is explained on Crimean Karaite page, but all efforts to explain him were useless.He continues repetitive removing links to RS regarding Crimean Karaite population outside the Crimea.
Please learn the issue and prevent this unacceptable behavior. Неполканов (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
My belief is that Budo and Kaz are the same person. At the time the IP check was done during the Kaz sock puppet investigation, they were not using the same IP. The Budo ID probably edits from an internet cafe or free wireless internet area.
Note also User talk:WordsWorth who was blocked for harassing Неполканов, who I believe is another Kaz sock.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz that could be reopened to include this information. I've notified User:Budo that he is being discussed here, at the risk of misusing Dennis's page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, thank you for letting me know about this somewhat underhand discussion. I know Toddy and Неполканов that you both take issue with certain facts since you did not not answer my questions last month on the Crimean Karaites Page. But nevertheless, why try to sweep the facts presented at Karaite Folk under the carpet? Have you read the article? Objectively, it is a very good collaborative wiki effort. Although I agree with you both that it does not belong at the Crimean Karaites page where user Kaz was pushing his ideas, since Crimean Karaites are objectively a minority lacking significant notability, but yet they have a wiki page of their own. I think you should both focus on trying to make the Crimean Karaites article into something worth keeping on wikipedia, and drop the bone now. For the record I work with minorities for local government and our IP is used by thousands of employees who I have never met. I like to read wiki articles and touch up trom time to time during my breaktimes. This is not an "Internet Cafe", and I am not User:Kaz. I do not want to reveal anything more about myself than that.
It might be best for everyone now to get back to discussion on the content of the Crimean Karaites article (especially the population figues) and see what we can do together to make it worthwhile keeping. Budo (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
To my opinion Budo is not Kaz. Blocked for disruptive editing Kaz is familiar with the Crimean Karaite subject and sources languages. From the other hand Budo lacks even base knowledge regarding the issues above in spite of the answers on his question that he has got at Talk:Crimean Karaites#s#Back_to_August page. While he recognizes his limitations, he has strong and blind opinion that Kaz's POV ,having some common lines with Karaite Folk Encyclopedia, is the only right POV. This POV is presented on the Crimean Karaites#Origins as one of POVs. If he thinks, that it is not enough, he could edit the original page with proper citing from the Encyclopedia .Instead of it he claims in his repetitive edits of original page that Crimean Karaites are living in Crimea only, while promoting the rejected version of the page by illegal way that needs to be stopped Неполканов (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Denis - another one of Kaz' sock-puppets is appealing his block.[13]--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I didn't read this before filing that SPI, but the checkuser got it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom
Would you please put your hand up? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yea - come on Dennis - I think you have support , perhaps enough to make a difference - Youreallycan 04:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
We don't always agree, but I'm pretty sure I would support, since I know that you think about what the other side is saying rather than bowling them over. --Rschen7754 04:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You all should read User:FT2/Arbcom the punchball. Very interesting stuff, and I trust quite accurate. If I ever do seek ArbCom, it will have to be when I am mentally prepared for the onslaught. My age, job and lifestyle allow for it, but I'm just being honest in saying that I'm not mentally ready to make the sacrifices. Jumping in this year would probably lead to me burning out by summer, or simply doing a poor job. We should all be aware of our own limitations, and I don't ever want to seek a new bit unless I feel comfortable that I am prepared for not just the technical challenges, but the emotional ones as well. Besides, I'm enjoying my first year as admin, simply being a student of Wikipedia and helping people, learning and growing. Your perspective changes once you get the bit, you get more practical and you develop a deeper understanding of the why in policy, not just the words. I'm still learning how to best interpret policy, getting a good feel for the real consensus on many things, and of course, I'm making plenty of good faith mistakes along the way. I owe it to everyone (and myself) to first become a better admin before I even consider a higher office. I'm flattered, but honestly, the community gives me more credit than I have earned.
You could try for OS and see if being a functionary's something you might want to do; it doesn't seem to be that much more complicated than being an admin, just more consequences if you make a mistake. --Rschen7754 02:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Picked you because we just "conversed" and people say you're a wise old thing. Hope you're still online. I removed this: [15] for what I hope are obvious reasons. I informed the poster, but in case he takes no further action, would you be prepared to see if the post needs any action? Thanks Begoontalk 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Let them debate. I did what I considered right, weighing the added exposure of possibly private details at ANI against the additional time it would take to find someone to act. If you hadn't responded so soon I would have found someone else. Good point, though - I'll link to this discussion from my post on his talk page. Thanks for the swift response. Begoontalk 17:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, "wise old thing" – that's got a nice ring to it. Mojoworker (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, as the last blocking admin, could you please take a look at this? I believe I'm exempt from WP:INVOLVED in this instance and can block, but in an abundance of caution ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, I, too, didn't think it was urgent. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, could you take another look at the article itself and the various IPs that are re-adding the same information? I reverted one, but I can't keep reverting, and I don't feel comfortable semi-protecting the article. The geolocates for the IPs are a bit weird, too. One comes from France, as does the sock, but not from the same place in France. The other comes from Canada. Yet, they are all crawling out of the woodwork and editing an article that is relatively obscure, which can't be coincidental. As an aside, you forgot to slap a block notice on the sock's page. I wanted to fix their request for an unblock, but it's hard to do without the notice being there in the first place. I apologize for all the trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Denis, could you give a fair look at this matter since the change that are made on Bourdin's article are documented. I don't know if Bbb23 is your friend but I think that he has no right whatsoever to stop people editing this article when they do quote reliable sources. His motives are unclear and that is the real problem, not who is editing it (or where they live), I believe Wikipedia's policies permit the editing of articles if it's done seriously right ?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.14.80 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to leave the last IP's edit in place for the moment. I'll wait until you have the time to check the technical issue, although I'm still inclined to revert based on WP:DUCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am not using any proxy as you will see, neither working with anyone to bypass a block. I am just telling you that the only one who's causing damage to the Bourdin's article is Bbb23. This article has been edited with reliable sources and he keep canceling them using the argument that the editing is not valid because it's quoting the article's subject (Bourdin) which is wrong since many subject on Wikipedia are quoted. Bbb23 has a problem and manipulating both Wikipedia's rules and you. Can you give it a fair trial ? --37.160.14.80 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.14.80 (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Looking at the technical aspects of behavior, it is a pretty clean and clear match. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.JPG)
In progress Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
