User talk:Dennis Brown

My barnstars

Consensus requires patience

It occurred to me that a lot of the escalating events this weekend (and on other days) are rooted in an impatience with letting a consensus develop. Accordingly, I have written an essay, User:Isaacl/Consensus requires patience, to advocate for editors having more patience in working together to find appropriate solutions. I have no illusions about this having any substantial effect on matters, but it's always a fun exercise to clarify your ideas by putting them down in writing. If you have any thoughts, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• What! I don't have time to read that. TLDR.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Levity aside, I appreciate it's a bit of a catch-22: often those who are receptive of reading and considering advice in an essay are those whose behaviour already aligns with it. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I may wander over and jump in, if you don't mind. That is a good concept, Isaacl, although BH does make a point in that the many impatient people probably won't read an essay, they just want their way. Like you said, a catch 22. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I do provide some tips for reinvigorating a discussion which may be helpful for those who already appreciate the need to allow time for consensus to develop. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Additionally, I feel there is a substantial group of contributors who genuinely wish to contribute productively to reaching consensus in discussions, but are unfamiliar with managing group dynamics, particularly when the group is distributed around the world. I think there is some useful information for them, too. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist IP

Say Dennis, as a well-rounded American citizen, could you have a look at 94.14.212.141 (talk · contribs)? They seem to be rather aggressively pro-US and anti-London; I came across them on Park Lane, Boris Johnson and this unexplained removal of content on Footpath. I'm not going to do anything myself as it's reasonably well known I get annoyed by "my country is better than yours" arguments (from both sides of the debate!), but do you think it's worth telling him to calm down and be a bit more neutral about stuff? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I left a strong enough note. That sounds like an older adult. The last thing we need is more nationalistic editors, and frankly, there is no shortage of yankee ignorance when it comes to these topics, myself included. I'm not hopeful, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This guy seems to have been all over the place - he's been at the perennial corn maize feud and the spelling of Labor Labour economics. This can't end well. I can remember an American couple asking my mom mum if she was English, then being astonished she could speak the language so well. (She's born and bred in Wales, so "no" is the right answer). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said if she had been a Scot :) In defense of the ignorance, it is a lot easier to be that ignorant in a country that is nearly as large as the whole of Europe. Not a valid excuse, mind you, but an explanation. I've spoken to many people at work (phone) who have never traveled more than 100km or 200km from where they were born, and never will. Reminds me of the Yank that went to London on holiday, went to see Big Ben, looked up at it, looked at his watch and said "Man, it's stood all that time and it's only 3 minutes off". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"We Texans just lurve ur quaint li'l English salad." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I forget the movie title, where the girl is making potato salad, chicken salad, egg salad, etc. Someone asks why all the food, and she dryly says "Doctor said we need to eat more salad.". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I can forgive Americans (I have to, I've got family there), and the cultural ignorance works the other way round. "What, you mean you FLY from New York City to Rochester? It's in the same bloody state, why don't you just drive?" (and yes, I really did say that). One of the nice things Wikipedia does is allow people to learn about cultural differences - I mean everyone in Britain knows what a Waldorf Salad is now, but those used to be just isolated examples. Can you imagine how crestfallen I was when I found out that the Dennis the Menace loved in the US wasn't the the boy with a red and black striped jumper and a dog called Gnasher? That was a cultural shock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm ex military, came from a military family, so I had a leg up over most, but I've still learned more since working on Wikipedia, particularly with Eric on my two GAs and the FA, correcting each other's terms and the like (he doesn't need much correcting for USENG, I did for UKENG), and dealing with Irish, Scots and English some at work. I love the differences, celebrate them. Two peoples separated by a common language, indeed. I consider myself patriotic, but not nationalistic. We aren't better than anyone, but I love American ideals. I'm not so in love with our current implementation of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We'd rather not hear about your "leg up over most", if you don't mind, Dennis. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, and now I'm the one with culture shock. There is an entirely different Dennis the Menace (present company excepted) in Britain? and the two strips started "coincidentally" during the same week in 1951? That's beyond belief. It must have been arranged by aliens or something. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Dennis the Menace is fascinating. He's not just a British comic character, I think he's by far the best known one, to the extent I could describe a red and black striped top as a "Dennis the Menace jumper" to anyone (in the UK at least) and be understood. There's no content based reason the US Dennis the Menace wouldn't work here - we love Calvin and Hobbes over here so there's certainly the market for syndication in British newspapers. But it will never happen because of the name. DC Thompson are proud of their creations and would probably sue any paper that tried with a trademark violation. And as The Beano has never sold in the US, it doesn't travel the other direction either. Plus getting dragged off to Granny's house to be spanked by the "demon whacker" is probably unpalatable for prime time family viewing in the US. Vive la difference. PS: Dennis the Menace is one of the oldest disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, created way back in 2001 by none other than Larry Sanger Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Never happen? According to the article Dennis the Menace and Gnasher, "the US series has been retitled Dennis for UK consumption". That suggests that the U.S. "Dennis" has at least some presence in the U.K. The strips are clearly very different. The U.S. "Dennis" is mischievous but charming, only five years old, a basically innocent character. From what I can see the U.K. "Dennis" is much edgier, more of an actually "bad" character. Definitely not something that would have been allowed on the comic pages in the 1950s, and borderline even now. As you say, vive la difference. But I'm still blown away by them starting the same week. One has to wonder if word of one filtered across the pond to the other - but maybe not, maybe the obvious rhyme of "menace" with "Dennis" (apologies to our host here) was just too good to pass up. At least the U.S. strip has a clear provenance: it was actually based on the creator's four-year-old son, Dennis Ketcham. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. You still get Calvin and Hobbes there? Lucky you. We have to go out and buy the books if we want to read that late lamented strip. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Calvin and Hobbes has stopped, just me being nostalgic for that and Gary Larson's The Far Side. I'm sure somebody has tried to get Dennis syndicated here, but I can't ever remember it taking off in the same way some US strips have. Comics wouldn't print this anymore, some parents seeing a child being spanked repeatedly by a slipper would be horrified. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I should imagine. We were beaten with switches that we were forced to cut ourselves, like normal civilized folks ;) My parents weren't exactly progressive, nor tolerant. And yes, every stranger/teacher/etc/ would refer to me as "Dennis the Menace" as if that was supposed to be cute. It wore thin after a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Something I learned long ago: there is no joke you can make about a person's name, that they haven't heard a million times before.--MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

They have completely different definitions for pudding, chips and the serving temperature of beer as well. They do have better tea choices than us yanks. The Brits do know how to make a good "Full English" breakfast, although that tradition is fading fast. Someone once told me the Brits changed up the English language, which was kind of funny since it was us that inherited it from them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That is funny. These disagreements go back centuries. Our folklore records a reaction to our Declaration of Independence, from an Englishman who disapproved of the document's use of invented words like "belittle": "It seems Mr. Jefferson has declared war on the King's English as well as on the English King." We each think we invented and own the language. (If that's the case, I wonder why it's called English?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ironic that we join forces to create yet newer non-words like lede, uninvolved and sockmaster. Wikispeak is a whole 'nother language by itself. We use more acronyms than the military and teenagers combined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't invent "lede", that's a newspaper term. But we have invented words that are far more outrageous than "uninvolved". IMO one of the most awkward/ugly words in what passes for English at Wikipedia is "desysop". --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason}}

On the WP:WIKISPEAK page, I did find a useful image that I will have to work into the next "how to request an unblock for a civility block" discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating conversation, chaps guys dudes, keep it up. I just wanted to go back for a moment to the original topic - the IP - to say I absolutely don't think that is a new user. Anyone who can use "lede" in an edit summary, and sign their posts as "~~ipuser", is not new here IMO. Have we recently banned anyone who posts like this? --MelanieN (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Searching is difficult, didn't see anything. Instead of all this "Flow" and "Wiki Adventure" stuff, I wish the Dev Team would spend more time making search powerful. If you search the admin boards, you can't even give a date range, not even a one sided date search before/after. That is criminally negligent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The best way to search (and this isn't just Wikipedia you can do this on) is to give the internal engine a miss and go straight for google (ie: site:en.wikipedia.org whatever). Some sites have picked up on this and integrate Google's search directly into their engines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I quite agree, Dennis, searching can be quite arduous. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP's very first edit was at Talk:Chinese whispers, where they made it clear they had been participating before. And yes, there had been an IP at that discussion, 90.198.209.24, who also signed their posts as "~~ipuser". That IP claimed to live in Britain (although they use American spellings, such as color), and they did not talk like the raging America-good-Britain-bad zealot that the current IP appears to be. But... that IP also started a Village Pump discussion about spelling of titles [1], and in that discussion they argued for a return to the original American spelling of article titles which had been changed to British spelling years ago without discussion. The current IP makes the same arguments, only more forcefully and from a more pro-American point of view. So, probably the same person, just more obnoxious this time around. Nothing sockish about this; IP addresses do change. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Confession to sockpuppetry

Hi. I understand that a day or so ago you indefinitely blocked User: Hyenabecauseitshills 595 for being a vandalism only account and vandalising the Administrator incidents page. With great and genuine remorse I am here to confess that I used this as a bad hand account to my genuinely productive good hand account. I now understand how stupid my actions were and am determined to once again follow Wikipedia guidlines to the letter. It was a one off 15 minute or so act of experimental vandalism which is in stark contrast to the over 100 genuine and productive edits I have undertaken over this year. I don't know if this will have any bearing on consequences, but the disabiling of my IP adress which came with the blocking of my sockpuppet account and which expired earlier today profoundly shook me up and felt like a punnishment for the sockpuppetry in itself! You may wish to do whatever you like about me, but I sincerely hope that you take into account my genuine remorse and the effective consequince of the IP block. For the time being, I hope we can form a cooperative and trusting relationship. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• It was Hyenabecauseitshills 593 that was blocked. As for you, Aardwolf A380, the normall process is to block the sockmaster (you) for one or two weeks, to get the point across that you can't do that. Even if I didn't block you, I would be tempted to put a 1 second block for "time served" so there is a record of it, but I won't. It seems the point has gotten across, so I'm not going to block you today, and would ask other admin to not block, assuming this is the whole truth. If you have a problem here, use the right venue. If you don't like something, work to change it. The problem with vandalism is it eats up a lot of time of others. Wasted time. I don't enjoy blocking and reverting vandalism, I like actually helping people instead. I would much rather help with an edit/move/delete/etc than contempate how to deal with your vandalism. Anyway, as you seem to get it, I will leave well enough alone and just ask that you never do that again. Find a better way to deal with frustration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I wish to ad for clarification that I also used the IP adress for the same perpose at the same time, I kind of consider it part of the same incident. Thi hope this doesn't affect your ruling, does it? Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • It's not a ruling ;) I'm not a judge, I'm just an admin, which isn't that big of a deal. Technically, another admin can come in and just block you anyway, but it isn't likely as we have professional respect for each other. I just do what the whole of the community would do if everyone voted on everything. The main thing is you get the point and pledge to not do it again. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone deserves a second chance without being bludgeoned over it. This is your second chance. Now go make some good edits, and we are all better for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Gabrielkat struck again

@Adjwilley: At General Hospital, they updated the episode count again at 2:57pm EST, and the episode had not yet ended airing for the final airdate of the week, per the consensus at the WikiProject Soap Operas Again, this is them attempt to over-ride someone else updating the episode count, despite your [final] warning. I am also pinging Adjwilley into this conversation, as this is not the kind of behavior that should be acceptable at Wikipedia, and I only hope an appropriate action is taken, as it is clear they have not learned from their warnings. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

• I feel so liberated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Meritocracy

Regarding this edit: I presume you meant that Wikipedia's community doesn't always value comments based on their individual merit. However, "meritocracy" isn't the right word to describe this; valuing a participant who has made a lot of contributions to Wikipedia over a new editor or an anonymous identity whose total contributions cannot be determined is, in fact, characteristic of a meritocracy. isaacl (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• It was the nicest way of saying what I was thinking, even if flawed. I'm a bit more upset by the method that I let on, so it is probably best I say nothing more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Dennis, there isn't a day that I don't see your name in some capacity on Wikipedia. Your time and expertise is very valuable here and I just wanted to stop for a moment to say that you (and your wide variety of contributions) are very appreciated. MJ94 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that means a lot to me. I've stored the original in my Ronco Barnstar Vault for safe keeping. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Open proxy script

Dennis, somewhere you recently said you had a script to detect open proxies. Is it usable only by you or are you sharing?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• We have a library? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Soham321

@Ritchie333:, @NeilN: I had to do this as Soham is ratcheting up his rhetoric. Just FYI he tagged me in his failed ArbCom because I was tagged by a user to provide information on his talk page behavior in the past (refusal to adhere to standard talk page practices). He is super aggressive sometimes and I really felt this crossed the line into a personal attack. I'd like to add that I strongly disagree with the user he attacked on many, if not most, occasions - I'm not taking sides here. Ogress _smash! 08:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I will probably bow out and let Ritchie and Neil handle this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Question?

If a user started a discussion in a dispute I was involved in, and he/she doesn't reply for like a month. Can I revert? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I need more info for all the possible scenarios, but if I start a discussion and no one complains within 1 week, I just move ahead. If they revert back BUT they join the discussion, have the discussion. If they revert back and don't, leave a reminder on their talk page. If they still won't and they revert again, they are asking for a sanction for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you're reply was very satisfying. I'm in a dispute and waiting for a response to continue on the discussion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Communication is required is an essay that I wrote that might (or not) apply to this situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement,

Thanks for that. I've probably seen it before, but if so, I'd forgotten it. BMK (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Past history

Dennis, Liz, regarding these edits: I thought I would respond here since the discussion is a bit off-topic from the RfA process. I hadn't remembered exactly when I started editing, but after checking I found it was in the same year that Dennis started. I'll have to say in the areas I've edited, I haven't perceived a big shift in the editor demographics regarding skill level. There have always been editors who don't (or don't want to) understand Wikipedia's basic principles, and editors who have done stalwart work in improving Wikipedia. As with any project spanning over a decade, there has certainly been a lot of turnover, but there are plenty of skilled editors who have taken their place, and a few old-timers remaining. From the very start I became aware without enough editors paying attention to a given article and willing to provide their viewpoint, it's impossible to fix problems in the article, because you can't build a consensus. So although the scale of problems have become magnified, due to the larger number of editors, personally I feel the problems of the present are very similar to problems of the past. And although I remained blissfully unaware of a lot of the old contentious issues (which I just didn't follow then), when I read some of the points being made in the associated discussions now, they seem more, shall I say, divergent from today's best practices—precisely because those debates led to the formation of today's pillars and policies. So I think there is a much better framework in place now in which disagreements can be debated.

I've mentioned Clay Shirky's talk on online group dynamics several times; the problem of managing a community as it grows is inevitable, and trying to avoid it just makes it worse. Wikipedia is the largest experiment to-date in trying to run a mostly consensus-driven community, with no hierarchical decision-making, and it's amazing how far it's gone. But after awhile, you can only patch the conventions and traditions that have accreted for so long before they start breaking down. I've said before that following the rules is at least five times the effort than not: someone can drop in a plausible-sounding, yet erroneous statement into an article in a minute or two; and I have to spend at least five to ten minutes searching for corroboration. If I'm still uncertain, I can request a citation, and then I have to remember to come back some day and check on it. If I find a citation, I've got to spend another couple of minutes adding it to the article, and possibly another three to five minutes rewriting the text to better integrate the original edit. So if ratio of editors aligned with Wikipedia's principles to misguided editors drops below 5 to 1, the battle is being lost.

The price of success is that it attracts everyone. It's good for extending coverage into new areas, or being able to get enough opinions to vet article content. It's bad for trying to continue with a pure consensus approach. Even if everyone is acting in good faith, they can have disagreements that cannot be reconciled due to contradictory assumptions or underlying principles, which is one of the reasons that consensus decision-making scales poorly. As a result, there will be a point some day where Wikipedia's editing population will have to shift in some way. It might get overrun by non-neutral advocates, or some kind of registration may become mandatory to try to force editors to maintain an identity and associated reputation (one of the steps recommended by Shirky), or the consensus process for article content may be modified to include some form of editorial oversight, or something else. The only thing certain about communities is that they will always change. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Two of your points hit home with me: When enwp was new, it pretty much just attracted nerdy types, GNU types, code junkies, topic specialists, and fairly skilled or highly educated people. As Wikipedia matures, it attracts new people wanting to be a part of it, random people who stumble here and like it, and POV warriors because what is say on Wikipedia actually matters and kids. The average age of a participant is probably much lower, but I have no way of substantiating this. This is exactly why I say the average skill level has gone down. Once it truly became the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", anyones started editing it. On average, an "anyone"'s skill level is lower than a specialist/nerd/professor/code junkie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't speak from before my time, but since I started editing, I've seen plenty of editors who did not work collaboratively in the interest of producing a more accurate, neutral work. (However I have no doubt that the Eternal September phenomenon hit English Wikipedia at some point.) Wikipedia has never been a friendly environment to real-world specialists, as a result: in the real world, you establish a reputation, and thus earn credibility for your work, whereas Wikipedia (as long as I've been here) has a tradition of requiring editors to justify their changes to anyone who challenges them. This can be quickly wearisome, and discouraging to editors. For example, some editors, for various reasons, will challenge routine copy edits, and it's a huge time and energy sink to have to explain standard writing principles and best practices. And unless there are others watching the article who chime in, the conversation will frequently wane without a consensus being established. I understand why it has to be this way with Wikipedia's current environment, but I think burnout of good editors could be reduced if some concept of reputation could be managed, or if some kind of editorial oversight/binding mediation could quickly resolve disputes.
  • One countervailing force that may drive up the average age of the editors who make the bulk of edits: with the incoming rate decreasing a few years ago (but now leveling off), the population of long-term editors is aging. It's the nature of any rapidly growing group, though, for average skill level to decrease: even companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google have to deal with this, particularly when they initiate large hiring sprees. It's a tradeoff made to increase capacity to accomplish more, at the cost of doing it somewhat less efficiently. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique

Hi. I have redirected Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique to Religion in Mozambique. The target article already contains information about Jehovah's Witnesses pertinent to the the only suitable source indicated in the source article, and I have added that source to the target article. Given the scope of the target article regarding other groups and the proportion of JWs in Mozambique, the degree of coverage about JWs at the target article seems reasonable. If you have any concerns, please let me know.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Seems fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Dave's not here, man. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Come on, man! Will you open up the door? I got the STUFF! Scr★pIron^IV 21:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheech: "How's my driving?"; Chong: "I think we're parked man." RO^(talk) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's funny, as I mentioned elsewhere I have a minor COI because I develop and sell UVB bulbs for growing cannabis, not something most people would automatically guess that I did. It is a small part of what I do, but it is what I do. Went out and talked with Ed Rosenthal about it at the 2014 Cannabis Cup in Denver. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)