User talk:Dennis Brown

Fellow Admins: If you need to revert any error I have made or the rationale for the action no longer applies, and you think I (or a consensus of others) would agree anyway, just reverse or change it, then leave me a message here. Thank you. - db

If you send me email, be sure to tell me on this page, I don't check it very often!

CSD Training - Thoughts - YRC2.0 - ARCHIVES - Archive 2006-1010 - Archive 2011 - Archive 2012 - Barnstars 2012+

BEFORE YOU POST - 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 like, you can post a note here pointing me to it. 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. I archive frequently, check there if a discussion has "disappeared". Thanks -Dennis

---

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Banned user

As you recently gave a 3rr warning to this guy's recent IP, you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas/Archive. He likes to pull out new socks on a fairly regular basis. He pretty much uses the same MO every time; so I don't think he cares that we know it's him. It's just an ongoing game. LadyofShalott 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, not exactly light reading. Thanks for the heads up. Adding a few articles to my watch list as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• In case that's not enough reading, take a look at User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. For a while, people who blocked these socks were making an effort to keep Dori Smith's list updated. Sadly it has not continued past 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I know you just got the mop, but I've noticed your comments in quite a few discussions, and I really appreciate the way you're handling things so far, with patience, humility, and care. Keep up the good work! —Torchiest talkedits 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just got back in town and saw your act of kindness. Thank you! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U notice

As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Presidential residences

Okay Dennis, I need your help and advice. Three months ago I posted a merge proposal on

• Summer White House,
• Winter White House, and
• Western White House,

all three of which glaringly overlap with List of residences of Presidents of the United States and IMO should be merged into that one. Not a soul has responded yea or nay since then, so I assume nobody objects or even cares.

Problem is, I know how to move a page (I think) to a new, not-already-in-use page, but this obviously is a trickier kind of move and a bit above my pay grade. Can you advise on how best to proceed with the nuts and bolts of this triple merger without losing article histories and talk pages, etc.? Textorus (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't done a lot of those, so going from limited memory here. Lets break it down: I'm assuming you are going to move content from the individual articles, into new subsections of the existing article, turning the old articles into redirects. I'm guessing you know how to make the redirect, which is easy enough by replacing the content of the old article with #REDIRECT [[article name#section name]]. If you are not moving any material, then you simply turn the old article into the redirect, preferably to a proper section. If you are moving material, I believe you make the edit summary say "Merging data from Summer White House to new article via merge discussion" in the edit summary. Since you are not deleting the old article, the history still remains, and your summary is the pointer to it. I think that is all you need to do. If you were deleting the old articles (no need here) it would get more complicated and I would have to ask for more help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so after copying content to the mother article, I blank the page on each sub-article and replace what was there with #REDIRECT [[article name#section name]]? Plus an edit summary as you suggest. That seems easy enough (WP:REDIRECT is not entirely clear to me on all this), so I'll give it a go and see if I get yelled at.

But before I start creating redirects, I wonder if the mouthful title List of residences of Presidents of the United States should be renamed first, as it is really more than just a simple list - though I suppose some some condensing and regrouping could be done. What do you think? Textorus (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You would need to start a discussion on the talk page of the article if you want to change the name, as I would expect at least a few people would disagree. Personally, I would recommend making the changes you are already working on first. Changing the redirects later is trivial. The name is long, but it seems appropriate as it needs to be that specific to be accurate. Then propose a move on the talk page and see what happens over a couple of weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think people would disagree about shortening the title (say to "Residences of Presidents of the United States") when in three months not a single soul has made any comment at all on my three proposed mergers. Be that as it may, I notice that Wikipedia:Redirect#Double_redirects says that the software will not follow more than one redirect, and if a target page is moved, then all the other redirects pointing to it will have to be changed. Well, let me think this over; I really should probably have left it alone as a big scattered mess and not gotten involved with all this tedious detail. Textorus (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But changing the directs is trivial. You just go any page, and click "what links here" then change those articles. Ok, it takes a few minutes, but it is easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's all the little trivial wikidetails that keep sprouting like hydra's heads that work my nerves. But I've just merged all three of those babies into the target article, and left the title of the latter alone. Now somebody ought to go through and clean up redundant info there, but that's all I have time for tonight. Thanks for your help, Dennis. Textorus (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, the best thing to do is come back here tomorrow, remind me, and I can walk you through the trivial details. Every detail a Wikipedia is easy, there are just a lot of them. Once you do it a time or two, it get easy to figure out how to do something similar but different. The only way to do it is to do it. I will walk you through stuff if it helps, you will catch on quick enough with just a little practice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A Bunny for You

A Bunny for You

I see seven or so experienced, thoughtful Wikipedias who all see eye to eye. That sounds like the community speaking. I trust the community more than I trust my own view. You are all probably right and I am wrong. I hope you find a lasting solution, as wasted keystrokes on back pages is one of the great tragedies at Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you one day when we are both paddling in the same direction. Much respect and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Anna. I always enjoy your thoughts. And just like I told Bbb23 above, it is good thing when good people have different ideas on a solution, as it gives us all a chance to learn something new and reevaluate our own perspectives. You are one of the good ones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	reading, waiting, then judging
	Thank you for living what you advise, "reading it, waiting 24 hours, then judging", for defending editors who are hurt, for practising mentorship, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome, and thank you for the kindness. I don't always live up to my own advice, but I try, which is why I like to write stuff down, to remind myself as well as others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I came across this page and I must say I am truly impressed with the effort you've made to help another editor master their communication skills. Wikipedia (and the rest of the world, actually) needs more of the kindness and hard work you've offered here. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! He is really worth every bit of the effort and then some. If we can help him work on the one area, it will pay dividends for years to come. I appreciate your kindness. Oh, and you can always volunteer to be on his "contact" sheet. That would be helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If the contact sheet is still around when I finish up my overdue bot-work, I just may do that. 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I second 28bytes' comments. This is really impressive, Dennis - well done. I'll bookmark it for my own reference! Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully he will use it well. And Prioryman, you are on the contact list since you "volunteered" :) You don't have to jump in there, that is just a list of people he can call when he needs a 3rd party to review a live issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bravo Dennis! I knew there was a reason we all voted for you! And you're a North Cackalackian to boot!PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm, a what from where? Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I had suggested something like that last December but nobody followed through above. The part where you agreed to be on his contact list. Just someone he can go to and say "hey, I need a second pair of eyes on this" once in a blue moon. Yes, I'm quite sure that is what you meant. And I appreciate the opportunity to implement your excellent idea, and your willingness to serve in this small role. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC) ...and my memory is as sound as my persuasive skills. ;)

"North Cackalackian" slang for North Carolinian. Not the most common slang for a Tar Heel, but I do hear it and use it. PumpkinSky talk 00:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that one is new to me, but I've only lived here 20 years. I'm still a Texan at heart, but married a local woman...so I'm here. I do like it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're a transplant/wannabe North Cackalackian eh? I have a Tar Heel in my background and let's leave it at that.PumpkinSky talk 00:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You should start the North Cackalacky Cabal. PumpkinSky talk 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's like being a regular North Carolinian, only bigger ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• NOW I remember!!! My brother in law says that. He is a native. He is the only other persons besides you that I have seen use it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your message

What are you talking about? Don't you see that I improved the existing article? You are free to block this IP anytime. It will be yet another proof that Wikipedia is ruled by idiots.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for ongoing edit warring at Croatian Liberation Movement Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• (hard to post this because of weird Wikipedia interface problems) You're amazing. I was just thinking about how to deal with this IP when I saw you had blocked them. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just doing my duty. I had left them a final warning that they blanked, and two more reverts in 10 minutes was enough. I had the same spaz interface issues.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I understand the policy justification for the block - it was just the remarkable coincidence that it also made my life easier, especially at the end of a long day, and me with a sinus infection (whining). This IP blanks all warnings. I'm gonna go rest now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I would of given you the {{The Admin's Barnstar}}, however you received one already :). I would like to thank you for your hard work over at WP:RFPP and your countless page protections. They are appreciated. Keep up the good work. -- Luke (Talk) 02:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thank you for you kindness in giving me a barnstar! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin Lewis

I strongly disapprove of your decision as a Wikipedia propagandist to censor the critical comments about Martin Lewis, the self-styled "MoneySavingExpert".

You had no right to silence that perspective on Lewis. It is an important view that is corroborated by articles in the very corporate-controlled media in which Lewis works.

Through your repulsive censorship, you bring great discredit to Wikipedia, "Dennis".

Furthermore, it is very difficult to believe that your public persona is even genuine. You strike me as being a fake. You claim to be based in North America but yet focus heavily on the political and economic activities of the United Kingdom. That's what singles you out as a bogus shill who works this internet resource for corrupt personal gain.

Wikipedia is a very worse place through your presence. You should resign, "Dennis" — Preceding unsigned vitriol added by 2.100.15.30 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC) .

• I solemnly pledge to give your concerns the respect and consideration they deserve. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottdelaney1067 again

Hey Dennis, looks like some peculiar editing again by User:Scottdelaney1067. I don't think there's any nefarious intent, but perhaps it's an over–ambitious neophyte editor. So, since User:HJ Mitchell‎ seems to have gone on Wikibreak, I guess you're my new "go to" admin . I've been waiting until the dust settled to congratulate you on your successful RfA, and I was happy to support you in that effort. At the time, I saw your comment on ANI and thought to myself "that took a lot of courage", during an RfA, to speak up and support someone who had !voted against you in a disagreement with someone who had up until that time, supported you. I leave it to the reader to determine which editor emerged from that whole shit storm with my enhanced respect. I'm glad it didn't derail your RfA. Oh, and I like the picture of the smoker on your user page, but am dismayed there's mention of "slaw" on the same page...that's just wrong man. Are you by chance anywhere near Asheville? I love that place. It's on my short list of places to someday consider retiring to. Mojoworker (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ashville is less than 3 hours due west of here. The Mrs. drags me near it on the way to Cherokee once a year but I haven't taken the time to really visit Ashville or the Biltmore Estate yet. I should do that this summer. As for red slaw, I have no use for the stuff, but they eat it on everything here, hot dogs, hamburgers, chopped pork or alone. The idea of mixing cabbage, ketchup and vinegar makes my stomach turn as well, but it is an important cultural food here. And I still have and use that smoker, it's in one of the barns, and it's about time to break it out for summer. And thanks for the support and your observations. As to the participants, I don't hold a grudge against Kiefer, and even spoke out to have him unblocked, in public and private. I don't think he is a bad guy at all, he just has a different life perspective and anger threshold than I do. Had the circumstances been different, I think we might have been on friendlier terms. I've extended an olive branch to him twice, but he appears to be uninterested. I will check into Scott, I had almost forgotten about him, as I've been busy trying to learn the new tools and finding a way to be useful here. Of course you are always welcome on my talk page, whether it is a problem or just to stop by and chat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 08:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Dennis. I left Scott a message about using some of the templates. Mojoworker (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've been looking at his edits some, I think he has good intentions, but he is playing at on the edge a little by getting involved in controversial tagging areas. I fear that someone is going to snap on him, even if Scott is in the right, and he won't know how to deal with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Antietam

Could you possibly consider semi–protection for Battle of Antietam? With the exception of me fixing a misplaced parenthesis, of the last 50 edits going back less than a month to April 23, all of the edits have been IP vandalism or someone reverting them. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, I would say that you should go to WP:RFPP but this was such an obvious case that I felt pretty safe in just semi-protecting it for 30 days. I clerk at RFPP regularly, btw. When it expires, if there is still an issue, take it there and ask for indef since it is listed as a GA. I may end up being the one that indef protects it there, but 1 month is about all I feel comfortable with outside of the normal venue. I noticed it hasn't been blocked in a few years, so hopefully the month should at least give you some breathing room and allow it to return to normal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think

Please see Talk:Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. Thank you. Onceangle574 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection templates and date formats

Hi Dennis, protection templates don't seem to support UK date formats, because your addition of a protection template to Sexual reproduction put it in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. This is obviously not ideal, and I've brought this issue up at the technical village pump. Graham87 01:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

See the reply to my message; you didn't do anything wrong: it was nothing that a null edit couldn't have fixed. Graham87 03:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is weird, I will check into that a bit later. I haven't protected that many and wasn't aware of the tech issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Troll

Your remark was noted. Since I am already here, can you or anyone else interested be so kind to finally help us solve this issue on whether the Kosovo War can be considered part of the Yugoslav Wars or not? Me and user:Joy posted over two dozen sources supporting the claim, while user:DIRECTOR still denies it. It is a deadlock so other users need to give an unbiased, neutral verdict on the topic. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• And I appreciate you taking the time to consider my points. I don't have an opinion on the content itself, and I would strongly suggest you take it to WP:DRN and let them hash it out there. They are better equipped and the format is such that I am confident that you all will be able to find some resolution. I know these articles get contentious, and it is easy to get frustrated, we all (myself included) just have to be careful and take it to the appropriate venue and let 3rd parties who are not involved help you. Again, WP:DRN would be the right place since you have already tried to solve the issue at the talk page and it isn't progressing. Thanks for the note. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have taken your advice: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Hopefully it will work and solve the matter.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

MMA and other stuff

This is probably really boring to others, but not to you and I. I appreciate the spirited discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, you might be an asset if discussion proceeds to Medcab, as I have recommended. Just to get your view on this, as I thought I saw something brilliant but nobody else has seen it yet. If I proposed List of minor planets: 200001-201000 for deletion (well, if I did it it'd be pointy but if an uninvolved party did it), there would be a string of immediate keeps. But all the deletion reasons I stated at RFC/U apply. The community recognizes that in this case a thousand-item sublist is nonnotable and notability is not inherited, but also that notability does not limit list content (and unlimited list content is handled by summarization), a list topic is notable if discussed as a group or set, and that the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in (secondary) sources. Summarization shifts the question from the intractable N debate to the better questions of DUE and other content policies. Even though other stuff technically doesn't affect us, it can be used to determine an overall view of something. My question is: What is the difference between the sublist of planets I linked and a single UFC event like UFC 27? It seems they're both nonnotable as a topic; they're both list-notable, meaning, appropriate for listing on a notable list; both lists, if unsummarized, would contain more data than appropriate article size suggests; and thus that event breakdown is equally acceptable as year breakdown for how to spin out the summary article into nonnotable subarticles. I can grant that the knee-jerk reaction (mine as well) was that for an article to exist it must be notable; but these longstanding list-breakout exceptions have been a quiet admission that this is not always true, and WP:N supports this. Can you at least see that this has hopes of uniting the !factions? Thank you. A couple sentences useful to this discussion appear here. JJB 17:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply I'm trying to follow your logic, and may need to follow up, but I did some actual searching instead of just relying on memory. It takes a bit to break down, so bear with me. These types of conversations are difficult for the fanbase to follow, as they are less concerned with the core policy concerns, and not much easier for the experienced editor either, so if I fail to make a point clear, just ask for clarification. As to the lists of planets, I haven't looked at it and would tend to think that, yes, WP:WAX applies and it may or may not be notable for inclusion. Just as I've done for all my participation at the MMA events, I'm forced to only consider the application of policy as it applies properly here, for the purpose of making a final decision that doesn't need to be revisited once someone deletes the planet article. I know that isn't the answer you are hoping for, but I'm forced to consider the MMA project against policy as a whole, rather than comparing to what has managed to slip through the system. You can't compare a "List" with and "article" in the way you are trying to because the standards are somewhat different, even if both have to pass GNG. For example, you can have parts of a list that are not notable by themselves, or lists of items to which none are individually notable, if you can still satisfy WP:GNG that the entirety has been covered by multiple reliable sources (the planets may qualify for this, btw). Reading WP:LIST.. Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. To me, this says that as long as the list on the whole is talked about (say, all of UFC in 2012, or all minor planets and you are just organizing them in a logical fashion) then you can include all the events that happened in 2012, even if you don't have a source for each event, at your option. You are also able to list only the notable ones, if you so choose. This is the rationale for the omnibus, which is independent from whether or not any individual article exists. It does't say anything about articles spun out of a list, so I have to assume it doesn't treat them differently as no exception is given. Once an article is a stand alone article, it must pass WP:GNG. All other subsets (ie: the essay WP:MMANOT) are technically irrelevant as they get their authority from GNG. But before I jump to conclusion, lets make our rounds at all the possible policies and guidelines that might offer us some relief. Up even higher is WP:NRVE, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. " with independent being a common issue when the sources come from MMA only sources. It does not make an exception for articles spun out of a list, so this provides us with no policy based exception. A closer glance at WP:GNG, the Holy Grail for notability, clearly differentiates the two "stand-alone article or stand-alone list", and clearly gives the exact same criteria for demonstrating notability for either. So in general, it is saying that all "mainspace pages" must provide significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, etc. But we continue our search.... If you look up one paragraph from WP:LISTN, you find the paragraph on sports events which states For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. which sets the bar for which types of coverage can and can not be used for the purpose of establishing notability. It is very common for a source to be fine to establish fact, but not establish notability. Examples of this include primary sources being used to document the birthday of a person. Returning to the Manual of Style guidelines, specifically WP:LIST, we see the purpose of lists, including "Information", justified as "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." which provides the rationale for the omnibus, but not the criteria for its inclusion, which is covered in WP:GNG. WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists is more specifically applicable, with WP:LSC being most interesting, as it discusses both lists of notable and not-notable topics in a list, but offers no guidance as to special exceptions for spinouts, or even notability in general. Lastly, we consider WP:Content forking, and more specifically WP:SPINOFF. The majority of this guideline covers potential NPOV problems, which are not relevant in this discussion. It does not provide an exemption for inherited notability for child articles. The closest example I can find is the statement "Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." which isn't directly related but would indicate that the only reason for spinouts to exist is to improve readability and navigation, not to make them exempt from any other policy, which one would assume includes WP:N. As such, all spin outs should be held to the same standard as any other stand-alone article. I have spent a great deal of time researching this, both before and now, and because WP:N is so clear in setting the criteria, and I can find no policy (or even guideline) that offers relief in the form of an exception, I can only conclude that the consensus of the community is that all articles and lists should be treated equally in the eyes of establishing notability. This is also consistent with my previous experiences. I'm open minded, but no one has provided me with a link to where this exception is, so I'm forced to conclude that an exception does not exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply 2 OK that's a lot, and I assume the right to reply in kind. I've just read half those pages myself prior to your mention, so I agree with most all of the above, and the primary disagreement seems to be that, recurringly, we are applying the policies to different scopes, and it's easy to misunderstand each other (as has also happened at RFC/U) for these reasons. I recognize that an AFD deleting a particular minor planet or centenarian would not be adducible to change consensus here. But I'm not talking about that scope: I'm talking about "List of minor planets: 200001-201000" or "List of centenarians (miscellaneous)", neither of which will not get deleted anytime soon, though completely nonnotable topics themselves (ignore individual list-item notability as a red herring). Like 2012 in UFC events and Later life of Isaac Newton and Ron Paul bibliography and Events preceding World War II in Europe, these are breakouts intended to cover a larger notable topic. The "later life" article is used as an example of good summarization, and yet it hardly even has a lead relating it to the other articles (only a navbox). But if an editor correctly pointed out 'it is OR to regard "Newton's later life" as an independent topic and evidence that RS's regard it independently is very tenuous', it would fail any delete or merge proposal. The topic is Isaac Newton, not later life. Nonnotable 1000-planet lists, or nonnotable chunks of biographies, are not regarded as inherently notable, but are regarded as portions of an oversize notable topic. I've worked on several topics from a summary perspective and this is routinely recognized. It's also simply not true that all articles and lists have to pass GNG: GNG includes; it does not exclude. An article may pass GNG, or pass some SNG, or be agreed by local consensus as notable despite failing these. And, it may also be a spinout of an oversize notable topic. The next scope difference is that the main list article I am thinking of is List of UFC events, not 2012 in UFC events. First, the by-year article is not notable and only exists because everyone unconsciously recognizes it as a spinout of an oversize notable topic, "list of UFC events". Everyone has long agreed that "list of" could be properly spun out into a large set of by-year articles, and that these articles could be spun out partly into fight articles. Everyone has also long agreed that the content will presumably be preserved regardless; though UFC 27 is gone, Hasteur has no problem asking for undeletion and merge to a new 2000 in UFC events. So the content is the same in each case, it's just organization. So whether omnibi exist or not, a UFC event is still a spinout of list of UFC events. My suggestion is that, if the omnibi are deleted, the set of event articles is a valid (and probably better) complete spinout of the content of "list of" than the omnibi are, even though some or all of the events may be nonnotable. Just like with a season of a TV show, there will be about the same amount of primary-source content whether that content appears in a by-fight article or a by-year article. But while an omnibus list may be good for a bibliography, where books widely vary in notability, it gives no benefit in the case of a set of programmed events that have the same predictable level of primary-source content. In that case if some TV episodes or individual fights were missing, since there is agreement to preserve the content, the "list of" article would contain very brief lines on notable entries but several grafs each on nonnotable entries, which is a very clunky appearance. (In the longevity articles, I did support a solution similar to omnibus, even granting this risk of clunkiness. However, there, there was not a predictable equal level of consensus-agreed primary-source content for each entry; the entries were nonnotable because very little could be said about them encyclopedically. Therefore their entries in the lists were not significantly larger than the summary entries of the notable centenarians. In the MMA case you'd have one or two lines for each "notable" fight and a large table for each "nonnotable" fight, and there is no DUE reason for claiming which fights are notable and which not within the list article. Much better to claim that virtually all the fights (and seasons) are nonnotable, and they only exist because "list of" is notable.) Building this more from policy (repeating my OP with quotes): WP:N "guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." So content of a notable list is unlimited. This fact is dealt with by WP:SUMMARY: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic." The article is merited by enough text, not by notability. "Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up." So we can make this decision as a local project. V applies as a standalone to breakouts, and this is fulfilled with primary-source citations, and secondary-source when they are available (but not to a petty consistency that requires deleting fights that lack them). The reason we do not delete is not inherent or inherited notability, but list notability: because the list is notable, its nonnotable subportions are permitted as standalone articles (omnibi, or fights). You say, "As long as the list on the whole is talked about [in sources] then you can include all the events that happened in 2012, even if you don't have a source for each event, at your option." Right. If size were not an consideration then the notable list of UFC events could have 200 sections with 3 grafs and 1 large table each, even if many of the events lack secondary sourcing. Now why must that hypothetical article be broken into years if it could also be broken into fights and there are several considerations favoring the latter? Don't you see that omnibus itself is an article spun out of a list, and by your standards "no [N] exception is given" to it either? So your quotes, while valid, do not apply to my claims: (1) the last lead graf of WP:N, taken with WP:SUMMARY and standard practice, demonstrates that spinouts are routinely recognized as nonnotable but persistent anyway; (2) given that both year and fight are nonnotable, there is no policy reason to prefer either one as the approved breakout system a priori, but that the decision should be made by how the topic lends itself to being split up, per WP:SUMMARY. No quotes disagree with this. And here is where "other stuff" does have a valid application. Your conclusion of no exception, reading many policies silent on the topic but not recognizing the application of either this common practice or its grounding in my quotes explaining the "exception", is a very broad and testable hypothesis. So it is valid of me to ask: would you support AFD of the list of planets 200001-201000? Would you AFD "later life of Newton" or "events preceding WWII" as being OR nonnotable topics insufficiently recognized as topics by RS? Of course not! You recognize the exception at work there, and you even recognize it at work to except 2012 in UFC events, which nobody has put forward as notable in itself. So why must you conclude there is no exception? Thank you for reading through. JJB 20:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply 3 You make some excellent points, and it is refreshing to talk to someone on this topic that has a good understanding of the policy issues involved and actually cares that we apply them properly. I had not thought of it from the summary position. I still have a few concerns as this is just a little bit outside of the normal use for summary articles, which are more common for stand-alone articles, and not stand-alone lists, and because stand-alone lists don't have the burden of demonstrating notability of individual entries, and you are summarizing out of them, this means you can technically have a notable list, with a non-notable entry, with a spun out article that itself is not notable. I don't have the answer right off the top of my head for that, and honestly, I have to ponder that to give it the proper consideration that it deserves. That IS an interesting concept, and it a lot easier to discuss it here without disruption from either "side" of the issue. I'm not convinced, but I'm open minded, so give me a bit to study and reply proper. On another note, as someone who has been in the mix of MMA as an observer for a while and is familiar with the difficulty of dealing with the personalities, I don't envy your role. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC) THANK YOU!! Communication accomplished. Your entire graf now describes exactly where I was about 3 days ago. JJB 20:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Don't thank me too soon. And I'm quite communicative with people who communicate as well as you have. Reading WP:SUMMARY confirmed by initial gut thinking, that it doesn't apply here. The word "list" doesn't exist in the entire text, and it appears to go to great pains to specify "articles" is a very specific way, to the point of redundancy. The second issue is the "References" section, which states: Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit. The Verifiability policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style sub-article. So even if it applied to lists, every article still must pass its own WP:GNG test, as I previously indicated. You may be correct that many people "let this slide" from time to time on articles, and likely it is because the consensus of them believe that the information is better served outside the primary article. IE: WP:IAR and it only works because everyone agrees to follow IAR. In most cases, the spin out IS properly sourced, however, and not an issue. As to "why break it up later life" and such, that is more a matter of accepted custom and doesn't really apply here. Breaking down sports by year or season also passes MOS. That is more a matter of how we organize the omni, and isn't relative to the break out articles, so will leave that for another day. I have to wonder if the reason WP:SUMMARY seems to take great pains to exclude lists is because of the "notability paradox" that you have a notable list A that rightfully has a non-notable section B, that is spun out to make a non-notable article B plus, and we are supposed to expect no one to AFD it. We don't have the authority to tell people they can't go to AFD. I don't think ArbCom would even be so bold as to make an entire category of articles "off limits to AFD". There are plenty of people in this discussion and in the wider Wikipedia community that would take exception to this, and there is no way we can force them to NOT bring this to AFD. In short, the plan has two fatal flaws, of which only one could possibly be overcome. WP:SUMMARY doesn't cover lists, so you would have to use WP:IAR to apply it, and even if people agreed to that, it literally demands that the article passes WP:GNG by being exceedingly specific and detailed on this point. If I've missed something, by all means point it out, because it does get complicated at this level. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC) By the way, if you want someone very experienced or a panel of a few select admins to review the policy arguments here, by all means, ask away. I will take no offense. Since this is about policy, and not specifically about the MMA article, it may be easier. If I'm missing something, I surely want to know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply 4 OK, now we're talking. (1) "SUMMARY doesn't apply"? First, stand-alone "lists may be articles". Second, the omission of the word "list" in SUMMARY is an argument from silence. So your conclusion of inapplicability doesn't follow. (2) "V applies": I referred to this above, V does apply. The event article content has a primary source, and secondarily Yahoo Sports or periodical when possible. But first, standing alone does not mean standing alone for N, in context it means standing alone for V; and second, not every article must pass GNG, which is why we have SNG and local consensus as well. Local consensus of N on an article that fails GNG and SNG is not IAR; the rule doesn't say articles that fail GNG must be deleted, it says articles that pass GNG cannot be deleted for N. So here your conclusion that events must pass GNG doesn't follow. (3) "Let this slide"? I'm not arguing that editors of these articles let anything slide, if I thought it was sliding I'd make my own simple AFD. The only rules being ignored that I can see are not policy, rules like "every article topic must be notable", not what N says. You then hint that maybe all these consensi (love those Latin plurals) are not letting things slide, but they are "excepted custom"; but under either homonym, you seem to consider adhoc breakdowns of bios and sports event lists as permitted, but with UFC events you regard one breakdown as permitted (by-year) and a different breakdown as flawed (by-event). The reason that most editors seem not to get this is that a one-event (5-to-7-fight) article doesn't look like a spinout. Newman read everything I wrote but still thinks I'm arguing that the one-event article is notable; it appears this is because of this basic reaction "it's an event, it must be notable, but if it's a list, the listmakers must have a reason", which was also my first reaction. But Newton's later life doesn't look like a spinout either. (The failure in the lead is incorrect and is something that editors let slide, and I would edit it if I took some time to find out how to fix it, but that's beside my point.) All the same, if I stopped by to AFD Newton's later life, I would be roundly stopped by regulars who point out that it's excepted (and accepted) as Newton is notable and this is "part of" the Newton article that just didn't fit there. So: (4) "Can't go to AFD"? Of course people can go to AFD. But only if an AFD finds that there is a broader opposite consensus larger than the local consensus do the fireworks happen. (Then the question becomes whether the whole project is off-balance or the outside editors are just not recognizing a compliant set.) Anyone who AFD'd any one of the minor planets sublists, or all 200+ of them at once, "can" go there, but if they are in good faith they will leave pretty quickly. The same can be true here. In your plan, if we had list of UFC events, plus one omnibus for each year, plus say 10% of the 200 individual events according to event notability, then it would be a Bad Idea to AFD "2000 in UFC events" for lack of sourcing and nonnotability in all RS. This fails because the omnibus is a breakout of the notable topic "list of". What I'm saying (sorry for repetition) is that if the events rather than the years are the breakout level, if there are no year articles at all, then the 200 event articles are each nonnotable portions of a notable topic just like the 200 minor planets sublists, and they are preserveable by local consensus that they are valid spinouts. So the solution is that people are free to AFD; then the project members respond that the information is V and primarily sourced, that WP:PRESERVE would tell us to merge the data, but that merge has already been considered and rejected and the present format accepted as the best org. That is, there is no new deletion argument if it's just N. People don't generally object to preserving the data, because it appears spread around the "list of" article and the fighter articles. The only objection is that the article looks like a notability failure, when it's actually a nonnotable breakout that is agreed to be best organized as such. (5) If we can hash this out ourselves, or else agree to disagree at some point, then it might be worth bringing in broader discussion afterward. To me the relevant guideline is that (SUMMARY) local projects should determine best breakup and so we are free to choose a per-event breakup (that's still not the lowest hierarchy level, which is individual fights within the event), in accord with practice at other projects. But at any rate, thanks again for your time. JJB 23:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply 5 I get your point that Summary focuses on WP:V rather than WP:N, but still says "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit." which I interpret to mean, must pass WP:N. A stand alone unit would imply it is held to the same standards as any other article, or else it wouldn't be "stand alone". Lists can be articles, but the fact that Summaries doesn't even mention lists is telling. It doesn't even say "treat lists that are articles, the same as articles". You wouldn't think that type of omission would be accidental. In most Summaries, at least from articles, this is a non-issue as the sources are just merged over to support the secondary article. More importantly, it won't stop the flood of AFDs. PRESERVE don't come into play because if the core info is already in the omni, and Preserve says that merge is one option, it becomes a somewhat moot point. It is already preserved whether or not you delete the article. I would have to say that you and I have similar understanding of many things, but not how it applies here. I can see that we interpret from different ends of the same spectrum. It looks like your focus is on finding a way to keep all articles, and searching for a way to make that fit the existing policies. That is fine enough, but I'm not sure your interpretation is consistent with a majority of editors. Just as important, my experience has been that many of the individual articles will still not likely to stand up in AFD if they are held to the WP:N standard, which I maintain applies even if you do accept Summary as applying to lists, so in the end we still end up with a lot of AFDs and controversy, and two sides of a debate that are no closer than they started. I don't see this as a step forward, just another version of the same problem. I've already invited you to get outside opinions on these points, and I still do, but I don't see this as being a viable solution, for both policy and practical reasons. Interesting, to be sure, but not viable. Would love to hear some perspectives from others and I'm still open to being persuaded, but I'm not so far. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) OK, then (1) do you think that List of minor planets: 200001-201000 and List of centenarians (miscellaneous) fail notability standards? That they slipped through the cracks? (2) Wouldn't 2012 in UFC events fail notability standards for the same reason? Or do you find some sport guideline that allows it and not the event breakouts? I still don't understand your perspective on these two questions. (3) We could ask at WT:SUMMARY about the omission you find important. (4) I'm talking about a situation where there are no omnibi, and all the info is to be preserved in the event articles, because the main article (list of UFC events) would have hiccups between short (notable, spun-out) entries and long (nonnotable, preserved-in-main) entries. (5) What you say about preserving applies to your situation, but not to the one I'm suggesting; but if the data in the omnibus and the event articles is identical, one of them is redundant, and neither one is more notable than the other. JJB 02:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I can't really speak to the planet's articles, as I haven't read them and looked into to it deep enough to offer an intelligent answer, and I just don't have the time, as I have a lot of other projects here I'm working on. I will listen to anyone else's opinions if you have a third party who wants to chime in, but I think I've done my due diligence and spent a couple hours on this today, and spent a few months on MMA issues researching as well. That and just previous experience. It is moot anyway as I've said the method isn't likely to work because of practical reasons. And at the end of the day, this was all about an RFC/U, not an RFC. This is about Agent's behavior, not the omnibus system. I am participating in any actions against Agent since I was involved in the problems, and I don't mind discussing policy issues in a general fashion like this some times, but I think we are at the point now to where we just agree to disagree. It is perfectly fine if you disagree with my conclusion, and I don't regret spending the time, but it has only served to reinforce my previously held opinions on the interpretations. It was interesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

For clarification of both the above and the next section, yes, I used IAR quite a bit early on because there was an open RFC, not just an RFC/U, and my initial sentiments were supported when several other editors agreed on discussing content as well in accord with my approach. I basically attempted, and I believe largely succeeded, to use RFC/U partly as a clean slate for the RFC concerns. Then, as the concerns about discussing content came out later, I backed off and referred that discussion to Medcab (which I may still open). That's just to say that while there is concern about my pressing content questions now, there was not originally, and so I responded in each case in light of the situation then existing.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree, though I'm disappointed you didn't find the time to look into the applications even though you looked through the policies. Declining to answer my last two questions suggests to me that the conversation about these two paradigms is far from over, though I don't know how much part I'll take in it; MMA is a very interesting microcosm for testing these more global paradigms. I do appreciate your being the first person to hear and understand the paradigm, even though you don't see the evidence for it in the same light. JJB 20:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that I'm nursing a sick wife, thus I don't have as much time as I would like to fully pay attention. The other part is I tend to be a little more wonky when it comes to policies and I think that any exception should be in the policy itself. My disagreement wasn't meant to be any final authority, I just didn't see the evidence in the policy and lacked the time to read through a long list relating to a class of articles that I'm not familiar with. To give it a proper read would take a great deal of time, and I would rather bow out than do a substandard job. Even now, I'm bouncing between the wife, mowing 1.5 acres a section at a time, and every day life things that the Mrs. can't :) You caught me at both a bad subject and a bad time. It's why I'm just doing RFPP's right now, they take less than 10 minutes each. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My prayers are with you. JJB 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the kindness. She should ok soon enough, and it is nothing compared to last year so I didn't mean to complain too loudly, I only wanted to let you know why it was difficult to devote a great deal of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hello Dennis,

I know you have a history with MMA and Agent00f but I have been able to reason with him. Would you be willing to cool off for a day before you post more on his user RfC. I can see you and JJB have been in a constructive dialog about policy as it pertains to MMA content. I think there is some potential for defusing this situation.

I'd appreciate your willingness to think this over seriously even though you have strong opinions.

Sincerely,

Factseducado (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate your perspective, and don't mean to argue, but I'm not "heated" or need to cool down. He has managed to get me upset in the past, but my thoughts on the matter are pretty calm and rational. Even then I don't recall "losing my cool", I just removed myself from the situation. If any comment I've made seems "hot headed", please point me to it. I can assure you that my opinions at the RFC/U were well thought out. It is perfectly fine to disagree with me, as JJB does on some points, and I'm quite comfortable discussing issues with someone who disagrees me with. But I'm not exactly known to be reactionary nor pepper my comments, nor do I see that I have here, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't want you to feel I am complaining. That is definitely not my intention. Quite a bit of nuance is lost when people are communicating in writing. I agree that you don't tend to be reactionary or pepper your comments. I hope you don't feel I have made that kind of accusation. I can assure you that I am not accusing you of things like writing something hotheaded. So let's give this communication between us a fresh start, okay? In the past you have written that you felt you had lost objectivity and had to remove yourself from the discussion of MMA related issues. My feeling is that there is a chance of more productive communication both at the user RfC of Agent00f and about the MMA content issues. When I suggested cooling off for a day before continuing to post at his user RfC it was an attempt to help defuse a situation that I perceive as overly polarized. There is disagreement on that RfC page and things can be heated there. Often times it helps if people decide to be the first to walk away from an unfriendly encounter. It is possible for parties to it to give time for feelings all around to calm down. I have seen things turn out surprisingly well in the past on WP even when they weren't expected to. This appears correlated with at least one user deciding to take a break instead of continuing to comment in the midst of heated dialog. I understand that you didn't find my suggestion useful and that is your right. Assuming good faith really is a good way to work together at WP and I know you agree. I do hope you agree there are many ways of viewing the MMA and Agent00f situations and I am not necessarily wrong if I don't reach the conclusions you have. It would feel helpful to me if you did extend that kind of willingness to agree to disagree with the readers of your comments on MMA and Agent00f's user RfC. That seems reasonable, doesnt' it? Factseducado (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't take offense by your comments in the least, I just disagreed with them. As for my comments, I haven't bloodied the page with my comments, or even bothered to reply to most instances when Agent or anyone else has disagreed. It is an RFC/U, and contention is the nature of the beast here. We aren't there to fix MMA, the U refers to "User", and the sole purpose of the discussion is to discuss the disruptive behavior of Agent and determine if further action is needed. All the other conversations about fixing the project are actually outside of the scope of an RFC/U and technically improper. As to assuming good faith, it doesn't apply to blindly ignoring bad faith, and you are preaching to the choir here. If anything, I generally assume too much good faith and give too much latitude and benefit of the doubt to others. I'm confident that I have exceeded the expectations of the guidelines here. My conclusion that Agent should be indefinitely blocked was made before it was recommended at the RFC/U, yet I didn't tell anyone as not to poison the environment. Once another independent admin had suggested it, I was under no obligation to withhold my endorsement. No policy required I withhold the idea until someone else suggested it, only my generosity. The fact that I have openly stated that I am not objective and have removed myself from the list of admins that can take action (block him) does not require me to exclude myself from participating. If others choose to be unpersuaded by my arguments because of my admitted bias, they are free to do so. I know you are new to Wikipedia and the layers of process aren't obvious, but I'm confident that my actions in the discussion are not only proper, but would be considered both restrained and at the highest level of civility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I am feeling you are not at all understanding what I am trying to communicate. I never said there was any policy that requires you to withhold any endorsement you wish to make. I have never said that I believe there is any policy that precludes you from participating at the RfC/U. I have never said your actions in the RfC/U discussion have been improper. I have no idea if others are unpersuaded by your ideas for reasons relating to what you term your bias. I would have no way of knowing that unless someone actually wrote it and I'm not aware of anyone having written that. If you want JJB not to discuss the content of the MMA articles at the RfC/U, please tell him so rather than telling me. I never misunderstood the RfC/U process and I would like you to extend me that good faith. Would you be willing to agree I have never indicated a misunderstanding of the purpose or scope of RfC/U? This sort of misunderstanding is one reason it is time to get this to MEDCAB where things can be sorted out slowly.Factseducado (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't tell JJB to stop because I didn't go there to enforce the RFC/U rules, and was open minded about what he had to say. Believe it or not, I'm known to be extraordinarily tolerant, many say too much so. Don't believe everything Agent says about me. Ask someone else, anyone not involved with MMA, you will hear a different story. You don't need to worry about my faith in you at all, you haven't done anything but good faith explaining your position and I never thought otherwise. I disagree with you, but I fully support your right to express it and don't take issue with you. You worry too much. :) If my tone seems a bit formal at the RFC/U, it is because I try to be concise and to the point. As for MedCab, I would be against it, as it is unbinding and not designed to address behavioral issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have not been interested in anything Agent00f has written regarding you. The two of you are not happy with each other and humans don't tend to say helpful things when feeling that way. I am aware of your reputation for being tolerant and well-liked. I think you built that over time. Everybody has bad days and I know you feel you have. That's normal. I have been taking an interest in what you write for a while and I literally never paid any attention to what you wrote on MMA. I think MEDCAB might be willing to work on this and it has a chance of success. This MMA content issue has been a sticky wicket and mediation and peace making are not a waste of time in my opinion. I know it's hard for you to believe but I have seen Agent00f make progress. I believe a lot of difficulties have arisen from his being new to WP and not having anyone to advise him. Factseducado (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• But my supply of good faith is exhausted, and in the end, the greater needs of Wikipedia outweights any one person, whether is is myself, Agent, or Jimbo Wales. Latching on to him is a bad idea, as I have a pretty good idea where this is headed. I've seen it many, many times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think this can blow over. The content issues with MMA will not be blowing over as far as I can see. It's just an area that will suck in new editors and get them banned while they are learning how to contribute. The participants, and I believe you have no interest in further participating, really should agree to MEDCAB. They are going in circles and everyone is getting or has gotten exhausted. It's time for a new approach. I seem to recall MEDCAB suggesting that people bring issues to them before they have escalated too far. Surely MMA content is an area in which dialog needs to be quickly moved to another venue because it has deteriorated so far and it's sad to say that it can actually get worse. A stitch in time saves nine. Factseducado (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I got involved because many, many admins here have suggested many times to simply nuke all the MMA articles, delete them all. My goals was to implement the omni system, which was moving slowly forward before Agent showed up. It wasn't painless, but it was moving forward. That is my issue with Agent. I don't care what someone says about me personally, I am truly unaffected by the rude remarks from people I don't know. I did care that it set the whole project back months. You can thank Agent for that. That is why I am confused as to why you cling to him. I don't care about MMA articles strongly one way or the other, which is why could serve as a neutral party. If you don't have a truly neutral party to help bring the two sides together, you won't get progress. Good luck finding anyone. I was privately told that I was a fool for doing it, by a great number of people whom I consider friends. I don't see too many volunteers willing to help, unless they have a bias, thus not neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't at all agree with your statements that I have either latched onto or clung to Agent00f. I don't like that you are writing those things about me. I would appreciate it if you would show more good faith to me on the subject of Agent00f and MMA content. I am not interested in assigning blame to anyone in particular. I have repeatedly stated at the RfC/U that multiple parties have not been behaving in laudable ways. Agent00f has been a person I have been able to reason with and that's a good thing in my opinion. MEDCAB is a viable option for the MMA content issues but I don't think you can see that at this time. Factseducado (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

MedCab may indeed be an excellent solution to the MMA discussions. It is not an option for dealing with the behavior of Agent, which is my only focus. I left the MMA discussions, what happens there is no longer my concern. They are two different things, and I am only concerned about one of them. As to my other comments, I mean no offense but it is based on my observation and isn't inherently insulting at all. I'm not the only one who has observed this, if you note. It doesn't make you a bad person or make you guilty by association, nor have I implied that. Assuming good faith doesn't require you ignore acts of bad faith. I've made it clear a great while ago that I think Agent is acting in bad faith, and his actions since then have only reinforced my belief. I am not alone in this assumption. I can not assume good faith in his overall actions, and policy doesn't require that I do since the reasons for the assumption of bad faith are laid bare for the world to see. Policy only dictates that I am civil, and I feel quite comfortable with my level of civility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Something I want to tell

Hi Dennis, Um can you look at this edit for me: ([1]), because an admin is trying to bribe me from not posting at WP:AN. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume Flo wasn't serious there. He's an experienced admin who knows an offer like that wouldn't fly. He's just driving home the point that you jump to ban proposals too often. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see whats the harm in that. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just his opinion. A trip to ANI was totally unnecessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah alright, I thought that he actually meant it. See, because I'm on the Aspergers (ThatPeskyCommoner, an editor knows about this), I tend to mistake what people actually mean you see, and I'm sorry it took to this route. See, with Floquenbeam, I understand that it can come to stages where he can be somewhat hard to work with when he often gets irked of with things, but since this is a difference of opinion, I will stay off now. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again, jump straight to the "I have Asperger's so I should be allowed to get away with it" defence. Pesky has herself told you in the past it is not legitimate, and you need to learn to work around your Asperger's. Dennis, some related links: here, here, and here. Think you'll agree Khvalamde has overreacted. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tinga Tinga Tales, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. GwenChan 11:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been naughty =( Replied at my talk. GwenChan 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I did get a chuckle out of it, so no harm no foul. I took the liberty of striking the vandalism warning, however ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to alarm me by posting to my talk page with section headings like Tinga Tinga Tales, thus making me think that our curious friend is back and nearly giving me a heart attack, you may be blocked from editing. I am also really disappointed that you and Gwen have sorted it out: I would have loved an excuse to block you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't send me to WP:ANI Mr. Watson! I'll be good! We was just funning! Honest! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Brandon McInerney

Hi, Dennis. Thanks for fixing the redirect. For what it's worth, the main article has been unprotected and stable for a long time now, and with the legal proceedings over and done with, it's unlikely there'll be any more media frenzies to attract edit warriors. Then again, since it's a redirect page that is unlikely to require further editing ever again, I suppose there's no harm in protecting it forever. So I'd say you made a good call. If you want to mark my request resolved or not done or whatever, I have no objection. Rivertorch (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I screwed it up a bit, as I haven't unprotected one, but eventually I got it unprotected. I was a more cautious than I needed to be because it was a BLP, but you are completely right here, it isn't needed. You are always welcome to drop by with a concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone has ever noted my "flawless logic" before. Thanks—I'll remember your kind words the next time this place is getting me down! Rivertorch (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Drop by anytime you need a lift. I do like to add a little extra kindness, with just a touch of humor in my comments when I can. It costs nothing and always pays dividends. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No fair!

I formatted everything perfectly Egg Centric 02:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• That, you did. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I was getting edit conflicted by you as I was trying to simply fix the diff myself. I already had known about this incident, but had I not, I would have gone and read the entire page and found the diff and added it or provided a stronger basis for my claims so I wouldn't have to strike them. ANI is already drama laden as it is, so I so tend to be a little more conservative to drive the excitement down, rather than up. But that's just me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends whether you see it as feature or a bug . If they want less drama they should appoint ten thousand admins, so that editors stop running into one another... Egg Centric 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance...

Any chance of a more even-handed word from you here? Can you just briefly vouch that I've left Osborne and Mervyn King alone, and am actually capable of dispassionate discussion, for example? All they are doing is spotlighting the negative, leaving the positive in the dark. There's been a flood of people who would dearly love to see me banned show up, and just one person who seems to have attempted AGF. AGF was not required in any event, since I have refuted the two charges.

Recall that I got that user Wnt, a neutral, to make the edits I thought needed adding to Osborne's article. I'm staying away from those who brought out the worst in me up till now, and the associated articles (Osborne and King).

So, yeah: I'm currently up for a permaban on the basis of two "misunderstandings" about a couple of edits I made to the Second Intifada. The person has, as far as I am concerned—though I've not jumped to accuse him like he has with me—lied about the nature of one edit, and then made, at the very least, a mistake of his own regarding the other. Since last we spoke, there has been a complaint about some silly comments on someone else's talk page (I deleted them without hassle as soon as it was requested by an admin(?)), but I'm not sure what the problem is there, since the person's whose talk page it was not the one who made the complaint, and the owner of the talk page posts utter rubbish himself on it and mine. No complaint from me; none from me. Even though he was rabidly 'pro'-Israel, I wrote a lengthy defence against his being permanently banned. Yet I'm always the unreasonable one, and others get off scott free because I'm easier going than they are. I've never initiated a formal complaint against anyone, despite some of the rubbish I've seen added and material removed, and despite the way others have spoken to me. There seems to be a tactic used by people of taking umbrage at anything and everything to get people banned, particularly on Israel-Palestine.

An ill-advised post—though I'm still not 100% sure what the problem is with simply pointing out that something is racist—about what I regarded as blatantly racist material that people had posted, and that about rounds it out since last we spoke here. I stayed out of the racism thing when told to as well, to note. Quite how two false allegations, coupled with some po-faced complaining about what I write on someone else's talk page when its owner had no problem with it, warrants a permaban is beyond me.

If you don't feel like sticking an oar in—well, don't! ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, even got a thank you from a 'pro'-Israel today! Isn't that sweet? They're not all bad. I meant to emphasise that my lengthy do-not-ban post for Luke 19 Verse 27 was before any of this blew up, so it wasn't made to help me out of this little pickle. Easily verifiable, of course, just need to double check the times. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, whoooops! Just bothered to check the rules on minor edits!

When not to mark an edit as a minor edit:
*Adding or removing content in an article
*Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article
*Adding or removing references or external links in an article
*Adding comments to a talk page or other discussion

OK, I think it's safe to say I have been violating minor-edit regulations on an industrial scale! Seriously, on that basis virtually none of my minors actually are minor, and I make quite a few of what I regard as minor edits.

To be honest, what's with the minor tag anyway? Who the hell pays any attention to it? If an article is on my watchlist, I check absolutely everything. You'd have to be trusting to the point of idiotic naivety to believe anything anyone ever does in this place. Besides, if you hack out 20k of material and tag it m, who is ever going to get away with it? Seems a completely pointless feature of Wikipedia, both in terms of using it to try and cover up stuff and in terms of flagging possible wrongdoing (unless there's something I don't know about). An edit should just be an edit. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)