User talk:Dennis Brown

My barnstars

Expired PROD

Could you please delete this expired PROD for me List of Sport Club Corinthians Paulista players.. many thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Generally, I prefer to check a PROD before I delete it, to make sure it doesn't get overlooked, and I'm a bit tied chasing a sockpuppet at the moment. It should be in the cue, and other admin kind of do the same. They will get around to it, or should, pretty soon. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, Thanks JMHamo (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Bish. This sock is persistent, done 3 blocks in 10 minutes with them, I didn't want to rush a PROD. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Shiba Inu Doge concensus

Why did you archive this discussion on the Shiba Inu talk page? Yes, the consensus is for it to not be included, but the vote was intended to remain open, as I have seen comments from new users who would like it to be included. I was about to re-open it myself but thought it might not be a good idea. Could you please un-archive the discussion? Felixphew (talk) Ar! Ar! Ar! 19:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• When closing a discussion, it is common practice to close and archive the discussion. For starters, it makes it clear that the close was based upon the comments enclosed in the archive. It isn't a "vote", and enough time had passed that it was time to end discussion on that one point of contention. Discussions usually take place over a week or so, but this one was open almost a full month, more than long enough to establish a consensus. You can ask that the close is reviewed at WP:AN but I'm positive it would be pointless. Even if everyone had voted to include, I linked a policy in that close that demonstrates why it can't be included, as we aren't supposed to include trivia sections. Reverting the close and reopening the discussion would more than likely be considered disruptive, as it ran plenty long and the outcome was very clear. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me add, you are free to still discuss the topic, but doing within the confines of that archive would make it look like the close was based on those additional comments, and be misleading. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• And let me add that this discussion was reopened already. There was already a reopening of a previous discussion, that voted no include because of the obvious policy, just like two month ago before, a reopening done by Felixphew. Also s/he was /is mocking me on his/hers userpage, with links that are directed to my talkpage, not so nice:"reason certain people think that Doge shouldn't. "... that certain person would be me. It would be good thing to remove those remarks. Wikipedia is not about winning or loosing and holding grunge. Hafspajen (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone who holds grunge looks very silly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good times

Just wanted to add my to what I'm sure is a chorus of voices behind the scenes, saying how good it is to see you editing again. Glad you're back, however long it's for. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's hit and miss, but will give what I have to give while I can. Thanks doc, hope real life is being kind to you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree, I been too busy doing content and avoiding anything administrative, I had no idea you were back. Welcome back! Secret ^account 14:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Altimgamr sock

As this may be an actual password, will you please review this edit. You've deleted pages showing passwords before with Altimgamr. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise already nailed him. I didn't change any passwords, I just hard blocked the editor. I think it would be against policy for me to log in and change his account, even if he is a sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea

Hello, I also think this issue should not be handled voting. Having two separate articles is not conform to at least two Wikipedia's pillars.Silvio1973 (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I understand your perspective. I've closed a discussion on it, now it is up to the community as a whole to decide what to do about it. It is now out of my hands. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A clean thing

You said you like admin actions where is no doubt of the problem. If you still like them, will you take a look at thr history of this article, Hachi: A Dog's Tale ‎ ?Hafspajen (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I left them a note on their talk page. I will be out of pocket, but after that warning, I'm pretty sure any admin would block them if they continue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)::well, i think it did not stopped after your warning. I think socking is involved, also IP,[1] but this might be a bit too unpleasant. [2]. Could you please delete those remarks from the history, please. Gareth was working with that article, and now this. Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Absolute last warning, which I expect they will ignore. If they continue, just politely file it at ANI. I'm not around as much as I would like this week, doing all kinds of neat and groovy things at work. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

. Do you think it is possible to delete this from Gareth's userpage-talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3aGareth_Griffith-Jones?diff=602423353, I mean remove it from the page history? I have seen things like this deleted from people's pages because it is offensive stuff. Hafspajen (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr

Thanks for your response to my question (and thanks for moving it out of the CU's section). I fully appreciate that as a non-CU I have no way of knowing how many registered editors use a particular IP range, so there's no way for me to ever know if a rangeblock is possible, but I don't understand your comments about the >8 million users. Yes the network in question is a CIDR /9 (166.128.0.0 - 166.255.255.255 with 128 X 256 X 256 addresses), but surely Wikipedia doesn't have to block an entire network? I certainly wasn't suggesting that, and no-one ever would. The 50 low-end addresses I mentioned (plus the next 14 also unused IPs) would be covered by a fairly small CIDR /26 rangeblock, i.e., the 64 IPs in 166.137.191.0/26. I'm not arguing that this particular exmaple block is a good idea or that it would even cover the full range the IP hopper is using, I'm just concerned that I have misunderstood something about rangeblocks. Thanks Meters (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is, it is often impossible to tell which sections you can block and which you can't. CUs are prone to punting when it comes to range blocks, and Risker is a pretty savvy CU, so if she says we shouldn't, there are likely reasons why. Range blocks are typically pretty easy to implement (I did one last night) but even if you just do a very typical /24 with only 256 addresses, AND there are some good users on that range, you hesitate. It depends on how the network is allocated. If we KNOW that only a /18 or /20 is used for smart phones and that is what we want to block, then it is easy, but sometimes we just don't know, and if in doubt, we don't. It ties into the 5 Pillars, being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also, it could be that the named accounts are using a completely different net range, or not. Since this person is editing a rather limited number of articles, semi-protection might be the best solution, as well as WP:SALTing articles, which I've already done a few of. More importantly, when an experienced CU says "we need to NOT use range blocks", I tend to take them at their word, as that is not something you often here. More than likely, there are reasons that you and I simply don't have access to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I am glad you are back and wielding a mop once again; we have missed your reason over the past few months. Thanks for all you do around the encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 10:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel I should add my voice...

... (albeit belatedly) to the long list of people who are glad to have you back. You were missed. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you. I will still be hit and miss a lot, I'm in the middle of opening a new company while still holding a position at the old one, so my time is about to get tied up, but I will do what I can, when I can. I appreciate the vote of confidence. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

You are a great guy, thank you Dennis ... Hafspajen (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just had some baklava for dinner, but this will make a nice dessert with the cup of Earl Grey I just poured, thank you :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah a tea lover!! You are a man of taste. [3]Hafspajen (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

On CIR and trolling

Hi, Dennis. I meant to comment on the ANI Doctornickel posted, for instance to mention the absence of edit summaries, but it was closed so fast. I never thought I'd see the day when I'd assume more good faith than you! (At least technically.) All the process the user has been indulging in — PROD, ANI, weird article moves — is indeed very strange from a new user, but I've given them some good advice for newbies on their page nevertheless. The AGF doesn't go any too deep with me in this case, but I figured it couldn't hurt. (Re the above section: I give a tea and cake appreciation class in Bishzilla's pocket on (most) Saturdays, welcome to join!) Bishonen | talk 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

• I'm not sure if I'm getting meaner, or you are getting nicer ;) I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't expect someone would just jump in and block, but I knew that if I said what I said, it would get noticed and by all means, that editor needed to be noticed. I'm not convinced it isn't trolling (and if I was 100% convinced, I would have just blocked....) but I trust your judgement in making that determination. If it isn't trolling or CIR, that guy is very, very, very confused. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You're getting meaner. You're one of the meanest editors ever and definitely the meanest admin in Wikipedia history.--MONGO 16:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Good to know I'm #1 at something. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

When I was a kid, #1 and #2 were nothing anybody wanted to be ... ;-) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Honey Baked Ham

Hi Dennis, sorry I don't understand, when I put in Honey Baked Ham it now takes me to an American company called HoneyBaked Ham not to an article about ham. Unibond (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Most People using the phrase "Honey Baked ham" would be looking for the company, which is why it redirects there. Even the B is capitalized, indicating a proper noun, that is why it redirects to the company as that is a very common misspelling of that company name. Some people might use that search term if looking for "honey ham", but not as many as would be looking for the company. "Honey ham" would make sense to redirect to "ham", but again, most people looking for specific types of ham would first go to "ham" anyway. A couple of discussions have already taken place on the issue, one on the talk page of the redirect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • But how can you make the assumption 'Most People using the phrase "Honey Baked ham"' when the company HoneyBaked Ham is only known in America ? Surely most people who have eaten Honey Baked Ham have never heard of HoneyBaked Ham. Unibond (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of the company. Eat honey-baked ham often. Can't imagine the company would be the primary topic! DP 19:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't about what anyone eats, it is about the likelihood when someone enters a search term. If they enter a proper noun for a search term, they are generally looking for a proper noun as the result. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I still understand your reasoning, all my life when I have referred to Honey Baked Ham I have been completely unaware of a company of that name and I would assume so have the vast majority of people who do not live in America. After all the Fried Chicken article doesn't redirect to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Honey Baked Ham is a common noun for a very old recipe not a proper noun, HoneyBaked Ham is the proper noun. Unibond (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And I understand your reasoning, and by no means am I dismissing it. I also appreciate the fact that you are entering the discussion with the right attitude, persuasion rather than just complaining. I'm giving the reasons I gave previously, but admit it is a bit of a conundrum. I think what might be the best answer is to put it up to an RFC and get outside opinions on it. Let it run a 2 or 3 weeks (it might take a while to get outside opinions, it isn't a "hot topic"), and I'm fine with whatever the consensus is. I think we both have good arguments, which is why we need to establish a wider consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
      • fine by me, thank you very much :-) Unibond (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
        • No problem, we are on the same team, wanting what has consensus. As long as the RFC is fairly worded and neutral in tone, I'm happy to live with the result. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

Trivia dogs. Should fictional dogs be added to dog articles? You said that trivia should not be added. Are fictional dogs trivia or not? se Japanese Chin. Many thanks, Hafspajen (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• In some instances, I can see mentioning a fictional dog, but not a complete list. Granted, I tend to be pretty lenient with cultural references as long as it isn't an exhaustive list. Noting that Lassie is a Collie might be ok in an article on Collies, for instance, because Lassie is so unquestionably notable (and I think led to an increase in demand for that breed....). Other editors are less generous, but under all circumstances it should be strongly cited, and any uncited claims removed. In the article you speak of, I don't see a reason for any of those. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And you mean it is OK to remove them? Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course, you can remove anything you want. In this case, the first 3 can be removed easily as they are unsourced. The fourth has one cite, but that isn't exactly strong and the section as a whole really adds nothing to the article. Removing is an editing decision, not an administrative decision. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am very sad that my pug is not listed under famous pugs...she even has her own Facebook page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sad too... Heard so much nice about - him? Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

as requested

Re [4], yes you're wrong. (See ANI thread for the link to policy) NE Ent 22:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. I've never used the DS knife, so haven't had the need to research it. Thanks. What about AE warnings, something else I don't use as admin? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if there technically is an "AE warning" (as opposed just a warning), but I expect any action coming from the WP:AE board would have to be by an admin. NE Ent 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Was just about to correct myself when you answered. I told you, I don't get into many of the more bureaucratic features of the place. I prefer to try to settle stuff with common sense over policy every time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Dennis. I am delighted to see that you are reasonably active again, as I regard you as one of the fairest admins on the project, and I was disappointed some time ago when I found that you were not active. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks JBW, that means a lot coming from you, someone who helped me adjust to admin life two years ago. My time here will be sporadic so I have to avoid long drawn out ordeals (I'm on the road a lot more now), but I do enjoy helping out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Watch out

You're now on EllenCT's enemies list [5]. You have just become an honorary Ayn Rand reading, Randroid/Austrian Economics proponent keeping the truth from Wikipedia. If you engage her, you'll go round and round. Mattnad (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, as far as that benefit will stretch. Can't say I've actually read Rand or know anything about Austrian Economics. Not areas that I'm philosophically or intellectually interested in. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Round and round? Hmm, perpetual motion machine? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And the likelihood of either is equal. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WWVU-FM

Hey Dennis, if you have a moment, could you put a short temporary semi-protection on the WWVU-FM page, please? Looks like some college kids are having fun vandalizing the page. I haven't issued any warnings, as I was hoping they would just stop on their own, but they haven't. I think 31 hours would do the trick. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Can't do that. What they are doing might be "bad editing", but it doesn't fit the strict criteria of WP:VANDAL. That also means it is still subject to WP:3RR. Sorry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean edits like these aren't vandalism? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The last one might be, but the others aren't "obvious vandalism" as defined by WP:VANDAL. Just deleting sections or removing what they might think is the "old" logo isn't the same as spewing garbage into the article. The problem is, unless it is very obvious, then it looks like I'm favoring one editor over another by virtue of using the tools. And the station now goes by U92, so adding that is (arguably) trying to improve the article, even if they are doing it wrong. Is Jim Fruthtarna the Broadcaster of the year? I don't know, but adding it isn't "obvious vandalism". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • A Google search shows zero (!) matches for "Jim Fruthtarna" or "James Fruthtarna", no matches for the last name "Fruthtarna" either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • They haven't edited in 6 hours, see what happens tomorrow. If I have to google to see if the name exists, then maybe it isn't "obvious vandalism", that is my point. I meant to send them a note, but I was very busy this afternoon. I work during the day, sometimes it gets rather busy, particularly this week with several people missing at the office. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I left a note. If they come back with problematic edits, it would be easier to do something. I just can't block or protect unless it is completely obvious. I'm not up to getting dragged into a "you treated IPs unfairly" fight right now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

References? or just silly

Any one, refs [6]? Hafspajen (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Urgent attention required att controversial article

Edit warring at Leavitt Bulldog is off again - the article was created by article creation stuff, but there is a lot of disagreement and now edit war. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK; sorted out (I hope). They are at dispute resolution, thank God. Hafspajen (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe not. Hafspajen (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Interaction ban request. Thank you. Northern Antarctica ₵ 17:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think I will sit this one out. By anyone's definition (including IHTS and mine) I fall under WP:INVOLVED with him. We've had our ups and downs (currently up, and his comment linked there was more of a friendly jab with just a little salt on it), and I think I have pretty good bead on the situation, but it isn't likely anyone will listen to me anyway. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• More than anything else, this was just a courtesy notification since your name had been mentioned multiple times in the thread. Feel free to sit it out, although I must disagree with your doubting that anyone would listen to you. Frankly, I'd say you are one of the most respected people on this entire site and I think your opinions are generally held in high regard by most of the noticeboard frequenters. Northern Antarctica ₵ 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is kind of you to say, and I appreciate the notice. I mainly wanted to let you know I saw it and let you know why I was sitting out. In my old age, I've learned that it is often better to not voice an opinion and just the rest of the community hash things out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note...

...that your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Food Trucks in New York City that "Of course all the items in a list need to be notable" is actually contridicted by the MoS (WP:CSC #2). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I just replied. In this case NOTDIR still trumps. Like I said there, if most were notable and we just included a couple of non-notable ones to complete the list (like MOS says is fine), then I wouldn't have a problem. In this case, almost all of them are not notable, thus outside of the purpose of that guideline. In short, non-notable entries should be the exception in the list, not the bulk of the list. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC for AfC draft

May I ask for the reasoning behind your removing the RfC tag from my AfC draft? It might be a common practice - I just don't see the reason behind it. Thank you for your attention. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• AFC is a stand alone place to develop articles, and has its own processes for approving or declining submissions. After it has been declined, you need to work within the AFC system to get the article up to snuff. Using an RFC isn't allowed because it is considered an end around the process. Taking a second bite of the apple. Like shaking a Magic 8 ball until it gives you the answer you want. Whatever analogy you want to use. It is a type of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and can get you blocked, particularly in areas like Fringe Science, Middle East, and other areas where WP:Discretionary sanctions are authorized. Sometimes you just have to live with the answer you get, go fix the article, or simply understand that the topic does not fit the criteria for inclusion. Not every article makes the cut. That is another thing you need to understand: The criteria is for including, not excluding. That means the burden of demonstrating that an article should be included is on the editors creating and maintaining it. You can't just make an article on Joe Bob Dunce with no references and say "you can't prove he isn't notable". That would be insane. The burden is on YOU to provide sources that verify the facts, using reliable sources, and that the topic meets the WP:GNG. In your case, the article you started was already covered in other articles (that alone is a criteria to delete), is a fringe topic, and a stand alone article was seen as undue (another policy it violates). To be perfectly honest, in the almost 8 years I've been here, I've seen 100 more just like it, and they all get deleted. It is well established that fringe topics without solid and multiple reliable sources AND community consensus always get deleted. That isn't likely to change. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain. My concern is that in the AfC process there is no way to get community opinions and reviewers seem to have absolute authority over article creation. About your statement "The criteria is for including, not excluding", I think it applies to the AfC review process but not the deletion process. In the latter the burden of proof should be upon the naysayers. Your opinion about my article differs significantly from mine and here might not be the right occasion to expound on it but thank you for letting me know about your viewpoint. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)