User talk:Dennis Brown

BEFORE YOU POST HERE...

Discussions about the content of articles belong on the talk page for that article. This includes discussions about text, images, tags, or other physical things on the page. This way everyone can participate.

If you want to discuss general policy, ask for help on a page you haven't seen me on, or other topics that aren't related to the actual article, post it here. Please note that I clear the page regularly, tend to not archive stuff, and just deal with things and move on. I'm not interested in creating a library of conversations and like a tidy work space.

Notes

Please revisit Dennis E. Puleston. I believe I have fixed the issues you noted and am looking for clearence of the tags and/or specific direction to get to this end. Thank you. (Cakerkela (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

• I removed everything except a cleanup tag, which isn't a biggie. The goal is to get someone better at formatting than you and I. I don't think you need to worry about anyone trying to delete it, but it still needs a little work that can be done by others (and you or I) over time. For instance, some of the phrasing, such as "His untimely death was a wake up call to the field of archaeology" and "and upon graduating embarked on his own adventures" are a bit fluffy for an encyclopedia. It's great prose for a magazine or book, but not an encyclopedia. Don't take as an insult, it is just a different style here than most publication. Encyclopedias tend to be a drier read, on purpose, as to not infer any bias or opinion. My specialty is writing advertising, so you can imagine it took me a couple years to really get the hang of it, and I still have a long way to go to be an expert at writing for an encyclopedia. What would be good is finding someone more experienced than I am in the subject matter, who is also more experienced than you at the style of Wikipedia, and recruiting them to help work the tone up to be more appropriate. That is the beauty of Wikipedia, many hands make for light work, and better work. Overall, I think you have put a lot of good work into it and it shows. It is no longer a chunk of coal, now (over time) we need to turn this rough diamond into a finished gem ;) Reading articles on similar people, and maybe helping edit a little on those will help you get into a groove when it comes to writing in the style for an encyclopedia. I'm confident you have what it takes with very little effort and just a little experience. Good job. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Merchant Prince II

Article is still under construction dude. Please see the tag before nominating it. ASHU^IND 17:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The place to discuss is on the talk page of the article, not here. Right now, it is only a one line description and a link to buy it, which fits the exact reason for the delete tag. You really need to at least start the article in your sandbox before you put it in mainspace like that, so you can at least provide ONE reliable source as to why the game is "notable". Dennis Brown (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Holbay

I've declined your speedy, as there is some notability. While never in the Cooper or Cosworth class, Holbay did have a name that was known. The article does need some work, and I've suggested to the author that some references wouldn't go amiss. (Nor would a bit of wikification... ) Peridon (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I will defer to your judgement, keep an eye on it and may try harder to find a source or two for it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Renright's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Dennis and thanks for your message. I shall be delighted to review your contributions and give you my opinion - hopefully later this evening. I don't want any personal info - I think it's best people are judged by on wiki contributions. I'm not sure why you picked me but thank you for valuing my input! Will reply asap. Pedro :  Chat  17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Honestly, I picked you randomly on a list of of admins who are willing to nom for AFD :) I figured that would be the most objective way to get guidance. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Ha! Of course! You can see some of my past nominations here if that's of interest. Pedro :  Chat  18:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Impressive is the best word! Nearly half your edits are in the article space and you're clearly balancing your work across the encyclopedia. Civil discussions and an obvious desire to help shine through. I also admire your neutrality in trying to fix articles even when PRODing them - your efforts at the now redlinked Alan McCurdy were great. I like your cautious use of PROD at times, although I guess on occasion it would be better to try the clean up yourself before proding - but the key thing is that you aren't recommending speedy deletion.

I do have some minor concerns that the "RFA crowd" would pick up on however and they are around deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IAMMEDIC was a slip up for example, although the second nomination where you withdrew was a classy move - again though it might have been better to work the fixes before sending it to AFD. I have some concerns about tagging - George Stonbely was also not really an A7 for example. A larger concern is tagging articles within literally minutes of them being created. Whilst obviously G10 / G3 criteria should be tagged and deleted asap it's never a good idea to tag for A7 within a few moments when maybe they could have been allowed to develop - I grant that moany of these were deleted anyway but it can be very bitey. I note a number of declined A7 speedies in your contribution history too. It's tricky - you have over 2,000 deleted edits so you're clearly accurate most of the time, but I can near guarantee that poor A7 requests is an RFA killer (even if you don't intend to work at CSD). Noting that you've only really being highly active for the last quarter of this year my advice is to wait until the new year, maybe February / March. RFA, as you're no doubt aware, is pretty brutal and you'd need to demonstrate around six months of editing at a reasonable activity level. You also need to really be confident on A7 nominations, and look to PROD or AFD a bit more on them I think.

Other things that are positive are a sensible userpage, no "my spacey" conversations, sensible pushes to use article talk pages and not fragment conversations etc. It might be worth considering archiving your talk rather than just emptying it though (not a big deal). It's probably worth noting that I would support an RFA now - however I assume it's not just my opinion on you as an editor you're after but also my judgement as to the likelihood of passing at this time which I think is only moderate. I honestly hope you don't find this overly harsh and I can only reiterate how impressive your work is. Feel free to get another review - balance will help. I'll keep your page on my watchlist. Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not harsh at all, I am aware that I have some shortcomings, of which I'm working on for both the benefit of Wikipedia and myself. I've recently begun working on patrolling from the back of the list, rather than the front, to catch myself from knee-jerk reacting to article creation. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people actually working on the front end of that list, grasping the 'low hanging fruit'. IAMMEDIC was a classic example of a knee jerk reaction, followed by a bad but good faith nomination, followed by working with the creator extensively, and even on the article itself to try to get it passed notability, then withdrawing cleanly (even though there was still some concern). As weird as it might seem, it was a mistake that made me a better editor. There is no doubt I will make mistakes as admin as well, but I am confident that I will be just a bit more cautious when and if I have the tools. Granted, I should now as well, which is of course the valid point you are making. Your points are well taken, and I will allow a few more months to pass and try to maintain a more consistent approach to my activities, both for myself and to demonstrate to others my ability to do so. Thanks again for taking the time to review my edits, which I know takes a while. I will likely approach you again in the future, if you don't mind. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)