User talk:Dennis Brown

My barnstars

Thanks for the Indefinite Protection of the Snakebite article...

Thanks, however, it is still unprotected. I think you may have forgotten to go ahead and protect the page. Thanks. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 04:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't even remember that last night, but I was running a fever. Perhaps I shouldn't work the boards when I'm sick. Fixed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Denis. the above editor motivation to lock that article is because the consensus scientific reliable sources don't mention his favorite snake (black mamba). a very detailed explanation has been written in the talk page, why it is so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Snakebite#Most_venomous_snakes_of_the_world_list_-_Ernst_and_Zug_.281996.29._Snakes_in_Question:_-_Totally_not_reliable79.176.152.55 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm no herpetologist, but you can discuss it at the talk page of the article and if there is a consensus, request an edit. After a week or so, you can request the page be unprotected if you like, I take no offense if another admin has a different perspective. I just calls them as I sees them, and take action using the best judgement I can muster. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

TRPOD brought to ANI by 2 new editors

Doesn't this seem unlikely to be a coincidence? Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, that is odd. The blocked SPA, Lw1982, is using a mobile phone for all his edits, while Tekken isn't, although his first edits included blue linking his user page, which is unusual. I'm not sure of any link except for filing against TRPOD, and CU would probably refuse as they likely are different IPs based on the "mobile edit". Coincidence? Maybe, TRPOD can be pretty blunt and gets noticed a lot. Regardless, it is worth keeping an eye on just in case. Thanks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I won't spoil the surprise, but I'm prepping an SPI report right now. Didn't have to look too deep, just at some deleted contribs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it, thanks. I figure we just reach the tip of the iceberg with socks. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick Vujicic

These are the strangest things I've seen in a long time. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I figured he just copy/pasted from another article for the purpose of defacing, but looking closer, it is pretty wierd. Probably a user subpage somewhere. Odd little critter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's my user page. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Facepalm ah, so this time, it was personal. Ping me if he visits again, should be easy to link him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Thanks for the feedback here. The consensus has been established. The issue is that the consensus is not enforced by those two editors who helped establish it in the first place. Thanks for your help in advance. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't really see consensus, which is why I suggested WP:DRN. It is a more formal setting for hashing out issues just like this. Without reading the actual sources, what I see is a very sincere but somewhat heated discussion on how to interpret (or how to NOT interpret) the sources. Sometimes it takes a little heat to get down to the facts, so this is one of those times when it is important that admin do NOT get involved "as admin" and impose their own will. From the looks of it, everyone is genuinely trying to do the right thing, but they just have different opinions on the quality of sources and what is primary/secondary. This is exactly why DRN works, it frames everything, helps define things, and gets everyone on the same page. As long as it is approached in a non-confrontational way, where everyone agrees to hash it out objectively and live with the results, the success rate is very high in situations like this. If everyone agrees to participate, it actually takes less time than continuing to argue on the talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think it has been resolved now, from what I can see on the talk page. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Italic title help

Greetings, how would we go about making this article's entire title italic: Do You Love Me (Now That I Can Dance)?Hoops gza (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I tried adding the {{italic title|all=yes}} option, but that didn't work. I also tried {{Correct title}} which is an ugly kludge but it didn't work. Not sure. Really, the all=yes option should have fixed it, since that is specifically what that option was created to fix. I'm hoping someone that is more familiar with templates will pipe in here and help. Stalkers? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Ok, never mind, I got it to work. I put the {{italic title|all=yes}} AFTER the infobox. Really, I'm not sure why I had to do that, but the instructions for template:italic title said I could try that and it worked. I also had tried DISPLAYTITLE:Title as well, no good. Either way, it seems to be working now. I learned something new. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As have I! Thank you for the help.Hoops gza (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:BMW AG

Hello, please hardblock Special:contributions/BMW AG. It is a vandalism-only account, and it is also a promotional username (BMW AG). No admins are responding.Hoops gza (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• This admin is heading to bed and I don't have time to read up. I see their talk page is a copy of someone elses talk page. Might be a sock, forgotten user password, or something else. Someone does need to look at it, I just don't have time this evening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Damn, you're good. A very eloquent (and constructive) summary of the problem. I thank you. Evan (talk|contribs) 03:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my involvement made that more difficult for you. Sometimes I am a major pain, I know, but I am not working against you and I hope you know that much.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Evan. Graham's hierarchy has been a sidekick for years, helping me stay out of trouble. No worries Mark, I never question your motives. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's funny, the triangle is always what comes to mind when I'm in a dispute with someone. It really is a pretty accurate dissertation of common argument styles. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Drat

I am disappointed that NorthernAntarctica/AutomaticStrikeout self-requested his accounts be blocked. It seemed in his latest incarnation, he was enjoying some stats updating on baseball articles, but I imagine there were other factors. Anyway, have a good Sunday. Go Phightins! 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It was not a pleasant experience, but I respect him enough to comply with his wish. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Drat seconded. The pleasure of seeing you back more is somewhat dimmed by AS's departure. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why I Have Undone Your Revert

Hey! I am letting you know exactly and precisely why your revert was undone. I did it simply because I think you completely missed my points. Allow me to fully explain. I am not one of the people that wanted to move Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana. It is the common name of the dried-up buds and leaves of the Cannabis plant that specifically is smoked (in bongs, blunts, joints, and pipes). This is commonly called marijuana, not cannabis. Marijuana is the common-name of this particular variety. This is also the working-title of the page. It is not intended to rival Cannabis (drug) (in fact, if you want...or I can...make a clear distinction between the page and Cannabis (drug) in the article-header. If you would like this page to be called something else, then please suggest it in an RfC on the article's talk page. This is the creation of an entirely new article, based off of the stub section in the Cannabis (drug) article at the section in the link. Thank you for your understanding! :) Good day/night. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 08:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I already left a warning on your page before I saw this. Do not modify/refactor my comments on a talk page again to make it looks like I am saying something different, or you will be blocked. That is one of those things that crosses the line is such a way that my patience is quickly exhausted. If you want to discuss something, do so on the article talk page first, don't edit war. I'm aware of the common names here, I understood your argument, you are simply mistaken, which is why the RFC was started, to develop community consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• How do you figure that an RfC is needed for the creation of a new article? This is really confusing. As for the strikethrough it was not because [I thought] you had "withdrawn" your statement...it was because the statement was no longer valid and anyone reading it would be extremely confused (as it said one thing, and what was displayed was another). There was a clear and logical reason that the new article was being created. I hope you realize that whenever people see your claims, they are going to be confused and will think that someone tried to re-name Cannabis (drug)→Marijuana without consensus. By the way, you state that, "you have already moved this to Marijuana against a consensus (which I reverted), yet you have mysteriously left out that title in this discussion, seemingly as an end around attempt." Are you referring to myself when you said "you"? I was not the one to put in any RfC and am quite new to the Cannabis portal! Anyway, I want to know what you think would be a proper name for the article referring to the dried flowers and leaves. I really wouldn't mind if we called it Cannabis (drug) dried flowers and leaves or Dried flowers and leaves of the Cannabis plant; these names just seem to be a bit awkward. What working title do you suggest? Thanks. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:Content forking. I've explained my view of the creating of a new article at the talk page of Cannabis (drug), it appears to be an end around the previous discussions. As for what to call any new article for "dried cannabis", I fail to see the need at all, but regardless, the place to discuss that is at the RFC itself, not on my talk page. That way, everyone can participate. The main point being: Once a discussion is started, don't go mucking about reverting while the discussion is going on, and never, ever refactor the comments of another editor, any place. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Let the man actually see the post!

At User:Jimbo Wales, it's only fair to allow time for Mr. Wales to actually see the post I placed. Also, please read through the You can edit this page! section on Mr. Wales' user page. My post is intended to be nice, and also fair per Mr. Wales' statement in the You can edit this page! section. People revert too quick there, and it's disappointing when it's done before Mr. Wales even has a chance to see it himself! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm aware, just felt like that was better on a talk page due to the format of the information you put there, but I'm not going to edit war over it. I didn't think there was anything nefarious about your edits, and I only had removed the specific sections that were more akin to a talk page, not all of them. "Anyone can edit" works both ways, after all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I posted it on Mr. Wales' talk page. That's fine. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

List of soft drink flavors

I know you're a busy admin (seen you around a lot at Ani, etc.; also, thanks for all your input at WER, which I'm a member of). Regardless, check out List of soft drink flavors and feel free to improve it! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see that WP is finally zeroing in on the really important stuff. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully... NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My contribution to the soft drinkopedia was adding the "retro" image at Big Red (drink), after buying a four pack at Cracker Barrel. I love Big Red, grew up drinking it in Texas. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: - Hey, no problem, I'm having fun with it. Just added Peach. I will also drop notes on the talk page. I'm pretty easy to get along with on these types of articles, not always right, so if you think I'm mistaken, don't hesitate to say so. These articles build faster and easier if we all just have fun with them. Great idea for a list, btw, you've done a great job so far. Nice to have a zero pressure, non-political project to play with from time to time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's appreciated: collaboration has become a rarer thing on Wikipedia. Thanks again, and yes, having fun is key in many ways! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember bacon flavored soda.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Lester's makes one.[1] That reminds me, I really, really need to make some bacon infused vodka. I've been wanting to try it with a Bloody Mary. Perfect for Sunday brunch. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See the new article I created a few days ago: Bacon soda. (I nominated it for dyk a day or two ago). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo

Normally I don't bother much with the typos of others, but I found this one for "reference" amusing: [2] isaacl (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I do depend on Google Chrome telling me when I've misspelled something, entirely too much. Of course, it is useless when I spell the wrong word properly. I've corrected it, and thank you for the chuckle. :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Groucho Marx

Thank you for blocking the troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I think we have a problem here[3] Somebody changes data slightly, but not correctly. The dog article data were wrong. Quite a lot of them, and it will take time to verify too. Something is wrong . Hafspajen (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have company over, so I'm not going to have time for deep inspection here, you might want to ping @Drmies: or @Yunshui: or @TParis: and see if they can dig into this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So, I looked at Billy West and what I found was that (besides shitty sourcing on that article altogether), the birth cite in the lead says 1952 [4] but the cite in the infobox says 1950 [5] (IMDB). So while we can't really give much credence to IMDB, it does give some credibility to the user that perhaps this edit might be in good faith.--v/r - TP 23:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Buscemi&diff=prev&oldid=606959224 Changed Steve Buscemi's picture to some football player. Hafspajen (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Materialscientist has already pressed the appropriate buttons for this chap... move along folks, nothing to see here... Yunshui ^雲_水 18:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, just a little thing.. He has to have the last word, I guess. Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted as he was refactoring another's comments. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of heaping more on your plate?

Because you are perfect for the Dispute resolution Notice Board.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I appreciate the thought, and I considered it at one time, but right now, I do have too much on my plate. I'm right in the middle of creating a whole new website for a company I just started (200-300 pages to go, and I do all text and images), plus the blog and social media links, plus I run a dept. for a small manufacturer, plus I'm married, and I really, really want to get started on this so Eric can come in and clean up after me. I'm still a bit frustrated with Wikipedia, to be honest, and I'm probably better off working on actual content. Readers don't care about squabbles as much as they do interesting articles. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  Amen to that. I gave up caring about anything on WP except for articles, on the basis that I couldn't change anything anyway, and I've not been blocked since. I recognise that's not a healthy attitude, but then WP isn't a healthy environment. Eric Corbett 19:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Double Amen. To be honest after seeing how Eric jumped back, headlong into content creation, I decided to do the same. Went back to almost nothing but creating new articles and researching and cleaning up existing articles on Hawaiian Royalty and history. I gotta tell you...I enjoyed the strict content creation and need to get the hell away from all the conflict. I absolutely agree....I am probably better of with just content creation. So...back to work everyone! ;-)--(Mark Miller)Maleko Mela (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

    Content creation also has its fair share of conflicts of course, but they can generally be resolved, unlike the malaise at the heart of Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 20:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Content disputes can be resolved by verifiable facts and simple compromise. Facts and compromise have no place in a good old fashioned drama dispute. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  I'm still banned from commenting on RFAs, that's how corrupt the system is here. I've simply realised that nobody is listening, so why waste my time. Eric Corbett 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

At least you can vote, people do pay attention to what you have to say in your vote, and that is more powerful than a question anyway. I've asked a question that has tanked an RFA once, but usually the answer really doesn't affect my vote, I've usually made up my mind, even if I keep an open mind. How they deal with the whole experience is more telling than any well rehearsed answer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have found that asking questions is an almost worthless endeavor. Not always but for the most part. I tend to look a little too much at some candidates so I have just decided that if i get involved i will just vote and pretty much leave it at that. I tend to see reason not to like candidates from some of their answers but sometimes I find a jewel.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I rarely even look at RFAs these days, let the children have their playground. Eric Corbett 22:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but it's sometimes like watching children who's parents have dropped them of at the park and then went to a local bar.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Just like the rest of WP then. Eric Corbett 23:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Some editors can't handle disputes of any kind. These are the ones that will blame you for their "retirement". I don't have time nor the inclination to accept blame when someone else can't see that their sources do not support the claims they make and continue to wikilawyer the point to death.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've actually had fun working on List of soft drink flavors a bit. It's one of those lists that makes you dig around, low impact, low stress, fun articles where you see stuff you never have heard of, then go read about it and learn something new. Its the kind of stuff I used to do before I became an admin, gnomish type things with no hassles, and you can pick up and put it down easily. It still needs lots of work and cleanup, but there is no rush. I like that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Regarding this edit: did you mean to say that you "can't see how" doing action X would "contribute towards a block", rather than "wouldn't"? isaacl (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, and thank you. Corrected. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

user removed my rfc for no reason and accused me of bad faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrikaner&diff=607348441&oldid=607348252, can someone revert his edits and explain to this user why he cannot do such disruptive edits 120.50.35.122 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would want to hear what User:HelenOnline has to say before I jump to any conclusion. Keep in mind, this is my talk page, not an official notice board, but if there is a simple misunderstanding or larger issue, I'm happy to offer 2c worth on it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • what do you mean just see talkpage history and reasearch it 120.50.35.122 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • There may be more than the one page and I'm not up for digging through every contrib of you both. If someone is accusing someone of doing something wrong, I like to hear both sides, in addition to looking at histories. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • I did notice one thing, there is a fatal flaw with the idea of that RFC. Wikipedians do not get to decide what they are called. Policy clearly states this. We have to use what the sources use, the name they use. We don't just "decide", we don't vote for the name, we simply parrot the sources. That is what an encyclopedia does. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

it was about what intro to use in the article , why is exactly is that a "flaw" ? 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

and there are no sources used in the current version which the user i was talking about made 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Helen's actions, I'm saying you can't just have a vote on how to identify someone's race or nationality. It is my opinion you jumped the gun by going to an RFC. If you really want to accomplish something, bring some sources to that talk page that support the version you want to use, since you are the one that wants to change it. That is the normal way to do things here. You use an RFC when there isn't enough input from just that talk page, or you need a much wider audience to enter the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

i just wanted that the intro to be changed from "Southern african ethnic group" to "ethnic group in southern africa", did you not see that i wrote that the current version lacks sources and should therefore be reworded to its original version 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

besides how do i supposed to "you need a much wider audience to enter the discussion" without an rfc 120.50.35.122 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Helen explained on the article talk page over two hours before the OP posted here asking for assistance. GB fan 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that this issue has also been posted on ANI. I intervened in an edit war over the article's hatnote, and posted a comment about it in a talk page section the IP had started. After another editor and I had commented there the IP edited the beginning of the section and turned it into a RFC without any explanation anywhere, changing the context of our comments. I reverted their changes to the beginning of the section and asked them to start their RFC in a new section. I clearly explained what I had done in the thread, with reference to relevant talk page guidelines, and I never accused them of bad faith. HelenOnline 20:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Things are always a bit more complicated than at first look. When someone wants to use my talk page as an admin board, I want to make sure everyone involved is informed. Of course, it isn't an admin board, but if I can prevent it from reaching one, I will. Here, this does look like a tempest in a teapot, and as I stated earlier, doesn't really look like a great idea anyway since it hasn't been fully explored by the editors of the article first. On that note, I will just bow out unless needed further. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way...

I think your concern (as you expressed here) about his approach at times is fairly justified. I hope one of his peers will make him see that soon, for his own sake and for the project's sake too. If attempts have been made so far, clearly they have not worked, but if they have not been, they need to be made before it is too late. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know. I like him, and actually respect him as an admin. I do think he is a little rough around the edges, but then, I can be a bit pompous or cocky at times. We all have flaws, so it isn't a jab at him personally. When I see a discussion about his methods, it always seems to devolve to pushing and shoving, and nothing of any substance ever reaches the page, unfortunately. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think he's alright. There are a few editors who have or still are in a similar category, such that when their methods or style of interaction (at times) is raised, more drama results (if not a spectacle) each time as little changes. This happens more in situations where the actual work can be quite sound too, which is the positive. I think it will come down to him and whether or not he is prepared to review those comments from another perspective, and make adjustments more actively to avoid issues later down the track, as I doubt this stretches for less than a handful of occasions. But time will tell ultimately, and hopefully this all becomes moot anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Any admin that is active and willing to jump into controversial areas is going to get called biased, abusive, etc. from time to time. It is part of the job. I think sometimes, DP gets defensive and you can see the frustration in his comments during an investigation, and that might be making it worse. When I've been dragged to ANI, I tend to make few statements, generally just saying "I stand behind my actions but I'm willing to comply with the consensus of the community". It isn't that I feel any different than DP when I'm on the block, I just choose to be very non-confrontational when I can. Personally, I think that makes people more willing to consider your perspective, or at least give you the benefit of the doubt, as it doesn't look like you are digging in. One of the most useful skills that I've learned at Wikipedia (and still working on), one that has benefited me in the real world as well, is the art of knowing when to shut up and keep calm. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you revisit this?

Hi Dennis, the time is near, I believe, and while I think I have some nominators lined up, I was wondering if you would mind a cursory review to make sure I am not missing anything obvious before turning this link blue? Thanks. Go Phightins! 23:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Give me a day. Watching "Orange is the new Black" with Mrs. Brown. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you much. Not looking to kickoff for a few weeks anyway. Go Phightins! 23:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Whenever you get to this, please ping me; my watchlist is growing increasingly large, and I have noticed that I am missing things I used to catch :-) Thanks again, and please don't rush; as mentioned, I am still a few weeks away. Go Phightins! 23:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Holy hell @Go Phightins!:, looking at my prior evaluation and recommendations, it looks like you actually listened and followed instructions. I'm impressed. A quick poke around, and everything looks pretty clean. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I got into content creation, but feel I can help out in between content projects; content gets boring too at times :-) Thanks for the vote of confidence. Go Phightins! 01:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please

Could you please delete this from the persons userpage? [6]. Not nice. Hafspajen (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Someone already reverted. Not really bad enough to RevDel, but I did block the IP for 31 hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. Hafspajen (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ZackDickens12

Re "ask an admin (like me, Writ Keeper, or Boing!)" - I think you're forgetting something ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• The rest of your name? If figured he would see the link above and just ping one of us. I went ahead an expanded the name. Unless you are talking about the block preventing him from asking us outside of a ping template. I don't expect it to last but a couple more days. I'm not filled with expectations there anyway. Once an editor starts talking about age, however, I feel compelled to give them that info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you're forgetting that Boing isn't an admin at the moment. come back, boing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh Facepalm. Sorry, but Boing! will always be an admin in my mind. He even mentored me coming out of my RFA. Do I need to start an RFC to force him to take the bit back? I'm not saying he has to use the tools all the time, but the average clue level of admin goes up when he has the bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the thoughts, but no, I'm not rejoining the ranks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(For anyone stalking here but not there, this is why not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC))

Once again

I am being trolled by FPAS, see history here. Something needs to be done about this, the guy has been on at me for years now. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: is known to edit in those areas and has on that article previously, so I don't want to assume too much. I think his summary here is more blunt than needed, but its something I would look at twice. I don't know the subject matter, but his summary here is informative, and at WP:DRN, would be a data point. He probably needs to explain why this was tagged as an unreliable source, but that is something for the talk page, which I see you have attempted. Usually WP:DRN is the next step. I will say this: if he is correct that Davis never used the 200,000 number, then it is SYNTH to insert it in that way. You can say that he said the commonly touted numbers were conservative, and that the commonly touted number is 200k (assuming you have sources) but you can't connect the dots yourself. I know that common sense says that he was probably talking about the 200k, and you, me and FPaS know that, but it would still be synthesis of sources which isn't allowed. Is it being "technical" about the policy? Yes, but it is the correct and proper interpretation, even if inconvenient.

You might not want to hear this, but I think you are better off working with him to create a paragraph that incorporates the information, even if it isn't the exact wording you would choose, and take on the "unreliable source" issue for that one book. Maybe it is valid, maybe it isn't, I don't know. Anyway, from what I can see, he has some valid points. The rest of the points, I don't know, but at least some of them are valid. I think you are also trying to do the right thing here, it is just a difference of interpretation of policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And now he has stalked me to here and this shit needs to stop. You are an uninvolved admin, enact an IBAN under the discretionary sanctions. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Drug to the Administration Noticeboards

I see that you recently commented about being drug to the administration noticeboards. I'd like to offer up {{User:Hasteur/AN-Reports}} as a humorous way of observing the futility of such an action. Have a wonderful day. Hasteur (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oy. It has been a while since I've been take to ANI for my "misdeads", perhaps I'm getting soft and need to abuse people more ;) I did take my own block to WP:AN today, something was odd about the situation. Those don't count, no drama when you self report. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Unless the edit you want to revert is vandalism or came from a banned/blocked/sock user, please do not revert edits, as you did to Chevrolet Corvette ZR1, without explaining why it should be revert via the edit summary. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• You added a youtube link. And it is safe to say I understand 3RR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it would be nice if an uninterested person looked in. You are saying that youtube is just as reliable as road and track and keep reverting. I've used the article talk page, you haven't. Now we need a third party to come in and explain, as I'm a regular editor on that article and can't put on my admin hat. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, because both are self-published sources. There is no such thing as a reliable source. The Internet is ALL SELF-PUBLISHED, full of forums, YouTube videos, and even more officially reliable —— magazines. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, there is proof that the ZR1 that ran a 10.74-second quarter mile time was stock. ☻ 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      • We can use Youtube as a source if the creator of the video is verified to be a reliable source. For example, if National Geographic published a video on their Youtube channel then we could cite that. If Buffy, the amateur zoologist, uploaded a video with similar content, we could not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
        • As I said in my previous comment, there is no such thing as a reliable source. Even channels like NG can edit their videos, etc. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
          • The Wikipedia community disagrees with you as WP:RS pretty much dictates article content. And since you're editing Wikipedia articles... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
          • On the Chrysler 300 page, under SRT8, it refers to a video uploaded by an amateur driver. Why isn't that reference removed? Because someone proved it's a reliable source. It's possible for a 2005 300C SRT8 to hit the quarter mile in a M5/E55-like 12.67 seconds. 99.155.195.72 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
            • The policy on reliable sources is Reliable sources. As for another article, may or may not need to be trimmed as well, but that doesn't affect this article, via WP:WAX. Just because one article is screwed up, that doesn't justify doing the same on another. Sometimes, adding an unreliable source is ok, but that is very rare, and never to prove a contentious fact. In this case, the youtube video is not a reliable source. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
              • While Dennis was writing that I was indeed trimming the Chrysler article to remove that unreliable reference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
                • I've also issued a 3RR warning to the IP on their talk page. If you revert again, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, Dennis, I didn't know you're an administrator. I'll be careful next time, okay? 99.155.195.72 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • • It doesn't matter that I'm an admin, honestly. Since I'm editing, I can't act as admin anyway, and it doesn't make me better or more right. Now, the part you deleted last time, it was your 3RR, but I could actually agree that a tinyurl image is a weak ass source and probably shouldn't be there to prove a performance claim, same as the youtube video. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock of indef blocked User:Altimgamr

Hello. Per the duck test 99.155.195.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a very loudly quacking sock of User:Altimgamr. Edits car articles and has a very typical style in his edit summaries (look at the contributions) etc. Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Figures. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just an aside

Welcome to my world. Paradoctor (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I try really hard to always assume good faith, but make no mistake, I often have grave doubts, even while my words here are sugary sweet. I was hoping that a day or two might at least get them to back down a bit. I don't have a problem with them professing wacky ideas on their talk page as long as they can contribute elsewhere with a modicum of objectivity, but it doesn't look like that is going to be possible. He really has blinders on when it comes to his own theories. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Dunning-Kruger is strong is this one. I may look a bit bloodthirsty here, but it is hard to see just how far out LCcritic operates without quite a lot of hands-on. Ah well, it looks like this matter will be settled soon, so let's enjoy the weekend instead. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm hanging with the dogs and wife, watching Netflix, which is my favorite way to spend the weekend. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scarce

I will likely be scarce for a bit. Real world calls. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)