User talk:Dennis Brown

My barnstars

WER Signpost article draft

When you get a moment could you swing by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Draft for a Signpost Op-Ed article and proof read the current draft. I have not "pinged" any of the editors mentioned in the article as of yet. I do not want a repeat of the recent tensions with administrators so I have tempered any mention of a rather vociferous discussion. But special care is needed so as not to upset a sleeping giant so it needs your keen socially-aware eye. My problem is the eye-patch that I wear limits my view. I don't need an eye patch. I just wear it for effect. . Buster Seven Talk 17:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Today I learned vociferous is a word, for which I thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And I thank Sister Mary Theresa, BVM. . Buster Seven Talk 12:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph "Not all consultation participants..." seems to single out one person, and might be better worded if it was more generalized. He isn't the only one with concerns, and presenting it as a minority opinion instead of a singular opinion might be more accurate. In truth, keeping EotW and WER in general on track and on the original mission isn't something you do once, a singular thing. It is a constantly evolving struggle, so the concern is valid. By its very nature, what happens shifts back and forth, party because others jump in and try to change the mission (innocently), and because WER members tend to be the types that want to solve problem, even if they are out of scope. These aren't bad things, just realities. Like driving a car, you keep it between the lines by constant corrections. I think that if we present that paragraph with that in mind, and giving credit to the concern (even if we think it is currently within scope), we do better justice to the reader. Other than that, it is fine. I'm probably quoted too much, but I accept my role in that. Dennis - 2¢ 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I replaced "not all ..............." with a slight paraphrase of what you say above. I think it's good to go and will submit it to Go P tomorrow. . Buster Seven Talk 06:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(andBuster7, and Go Phightins!). I think the article is biased and reads lke an advertorial. If it were to equally discuss some of the problems it's going through, e.g. among others, becoming the new venue for the band of editors who instead of commenting at RfA, now user WER as their playground where they can make their obnoxious attacks and innuendos with impunity, it might attract more members instead of losing some like me. Stay tuned for the Signpost comments section when the op-ed goes live. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is still a draft and, as far as I'm concerned, you can add anything you choose to it. You can completely rewrite it if you like. There is no deadline. There is no set publishing date. From the very beginning (January 24th) editors had the option to add or subtract anything they wanted. If Go Phightins chooses not to use it, that's 100% OK with me. There is no need to begin his editorial career with controversy. That an article get written was a suggestion during the "Consultation" (as I started to call it). I thought it was a good idea and ran with it. If you think it's biased, change it. I won't disagree that it may be a bit advertorial but then I'm not disgruntled. I like the place. . Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(andBuster7, and Go Phightins!) It still seems to have escaped some people's attention that I feel alienated from WER for boldly offering my opinions. I'm also ashamed to share space that allows trolling and PA on its pages with impunity - to me that defies the purpose of the project. I therefore decline the kind suggestion that I recast the article - current WER members understand the new focus and philosophy of WER better than I do.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Somethings you have to fight for, others you coax. The devil is knowing which. I did ask him to tone back some of the verbiage to not single anyone out, and to acknowledge that opinions like yours aren't singular, although I do think they are minority. This doesn't mean the minority is wrong, as statistics are simply numbers, not judgments. Honestly, I don't know all the details that got us here, if I had the time to find out, I would gladly give it, but I don't. I understand the frustration, WER can get ugly sometimes, but often it takes ugly to get the facts out, which is why we have always been more tolerant there...to a point, and once that point has been made, the regular rules apply. Some will go there to make their "parting shots" before retiring. It seems pointless to "punish" someone retiring, so it generally gets ignored, as an example. We have that luxury because WER isn't an "official" board, it is a loose collection of individuals that have similar goals. It has never had a singular vision, singular goal because retention isn't a singular problem. Often we disagree on what the *real* problem is, but even those arguments present opportunity to learn. I will simply say that I have always learned more from those I disagreed with than I have from those I agreed with. I am betting you have as well. Steering WER requires an huge amount of patience, finesse and diplomacy. A velvet rope. Occasionally a short blunt comment or two. I still would prefer you help from the inside out, rather than comment from the outside in, but the choice is yours. It requires you put up with things you don't like. Lord knows, I didn't agree with everything there. But it was and continues to be built on the "stone soup" philosophy, so you have to let everyone put in what they have to offer, even if it isn't to your taste. You are up to the task Kudpung, even if it tests your limits from time to time. You are certainly no less capable than I am, quite the opposite actually. You just have to set the bar a bit lower in regard to others, and accept imperfection on a grand scale. At the end of the day, most of the work is still great work. The rest is just the price we pay to get the other. Sorry to be so long, I'm not very pithy when I'm tired, but the short of it is this: As flawed as WER is, it still beats the alternative, and with leadership by example rather than leadership by role, it can get better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello how are you?. I apologize for the inconvenience, but I would like to give a concern. I realized that you blocked the user:ENT 70 A user has many problems, vandalism and insults relating in particular to the Christian articles in Arabic Wikipedia. This user:ENT 70 was blocked several times in Arabic Wikipedia. The user:ENT 70 make a sock puppet called user:ربيع الغد which as far as we know is violation of the rules. and we blocked him Arabic Wikipedia. The user:ENT 70 - or as sock puppet user:ربيع الغد- is active now in the English wiki here here. So since the user:ENT 70 was blocked and he made several racism and personal attacks, I wanted to say that's he is back here in different name user:ربيع الغد as we found in the Arabic wiki. and we concern he will make the same kind of vandalism as he did in the arabic wikipeida. Deeply apologize for the inconvenience but we wanted to say our concerns about this user who has a history of vandalism in the arabic wikipeida.-Jobas (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Right now, I'm out of commission. You need to drop at note at WP:SPI or with an active admin. I'm not even an admin right now, no special tools to handle it, even if I had the time. Dennis - 2¢ 00:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Meno25: are you around? This sounds like something you might be interested in... --Rschen7754 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Yes. Thank you for notifying me. --Meno25 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also hello

Did you hear TParis left us? I wonder if this is how you two lovebirds met. Take it easy Dennis! Drmies (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was aware, he was kind enough to mention me by name on his user page. Tom and I never pulled our punches in debates, and sometimes it got a bit ugly from the viewpoint of the outside world, but we never lost respect for the other. Most of the time, we all agree anyway. In a perfect world, that is how admin should get along, not afraid to take a stand, not afraid to disagree, but never losing sight of the fact that we all serve the same master, the reader. I did slam him with templates pretty fast in your example, but forgive me, that was 7 years ago and I had only been here a couple of years then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You are forgiven. Now get back to work, DB. I mean real work, not this stuff here. :) Drmies (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, so TParis has a real name! I don't think "Tom" is right. I could settle for "Tim", maybe. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, Tom Paris is the neerdowell petty thug turned good guy pilot of the USS Voyager in the TV show Star Trek: Voyager. IE: The pretty bad boy. I'm a major Star Trek geek, so I instantly knew this when I saw his name TParis back in 08. I'm reasonably confident that this isn't his real name in real life. Calling him "Tom" when it isn't in his user name just gives me street cred with the Star Trek gangs around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WER

The more the discussions develop there the more I am convinced I did the right thing by retiring from it. Your comments are right on the nail but try to convince the new owners of WER and the riff-raff they allow in. We have perfectly legitimate interest groups on Wikipedia, they are centred around topic areas for articles, development of our policies and software, and for the integration of users with our guidelines, and we call them 'projects'. I am thoroughly against sectarian groups (gender, religion, LGBT, colour, lawyers, professors, policemen, politicians, etc.) having a social networking space on Wikipedia, (and we've got one already for the aficionados of foul language and PA and you know where it is). IMHO the best thing such people can do is go and create their own forum somewhere else - there are plenty of free web hosts and plenty of free forum software packages, heck they could even install and use free MediaWiki software. Such groups on-Wiki would inevitably cause friction sooner or later or fall foul of an AE, and we have the whole Arbcom drama all over again with the perps crying 'injustice'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) I think I;ll just ping Buster7 on this too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I never owned it. Again, if you look back at the original talk page histories, you find I do everything I can to NOT be in charge. I tend to speak with a bit of authority now only because I have faith that the majority agree with me. It is always a risk. But even now I do so as gentle but direct as I can. Then as now, I see my role as providing some spiritual guidance, not dictator authority. To do this, I've always had to step back a bit on most things and let them play out, hopefully allowing others to first come to the same conclusion, before I had to say anything. I knew stepping back would be bumpy. I'm giving what little time I do have almost exclusively there. Perhaps creating coordinators was a mistake, perhaps not, I don't know yet, it's still early. I had no authority to do so, nor authority to erase that decision....except that authority granted by consent. Limiting the scope to assisting those that do not discriminate is an easy decision to make, however, and I will find the time to fight that in the most vigorous manner possible. Like I said, you don't end discrimination by practicing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• • I will add, one of the primary reasons for me being outspoken on keeping WER open is exactly to avoid AE and the whole gender gap arbcom case problems. WER isn't a battleground, political tool or bully pulpit for anyone. I've never used it that way and will not allow anyone else to. WER is about bringing people together, not carving them up into little groups. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was not "pinged" here. I think its because a capital "U" was used instead of a lower case one. Elsewhere Dennis uses the analogy of "an open tent" to describe WER. I like that image. Open flowing walls, a cooling breeze, a welcoming place for all to be normal, riff-raff included. Nothing prim and proper, nothing set in place to discount the worth and value of others. Monitors in place to handle the occasional ruckus which happens so rarely that it is remarkable (to some). No entry fee or qualifying membership required to participate. A good place. . Buster Seven Talk 13:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the absence of an echo notification was because when your user name was added, a full date/timestamp was not added at the same time. isaacl (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Isaacl. You always teach me something. . Buster Seven Talk 15:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that is a valid analogy Buster. Even now at WER, I've made a stand on inclusionism that is fairly succinct. It didn't end the discussion, but instead redirected the discussion in a direction that considers my ideas and original goals, and how it applies now. There is more focus. I don't have all the answers, but as for the principle ideals behind WER, I am confident I have a keen grasp of these. This is why I never get involved in the details and instead worry about the big picture. To be honest, I never wanted the role but this is where we are, so it would be foolish to not admit it. Not a leader, not a dictator, but instead, a guardian, subject to consensus. It does feel like WER is under attack at times by people wanting to use it for their own out of scope purposes. Kudpung, this is why you are needed, this is why I hope you can adjust to the whole "let wild conversations die a natural death, if you can" place that it is. It usually isn't like that, we just have to allow it to push the limits of our tolerance once in a while. The Big Picture matters most, and we need strong people, people who aren't afraid to bump heads but won't take it personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, (and FYI Buster7), I have never for a moment suggested that you are/were the owner of WER or a dictator, or whatever else. However, as is often the case in RL when a strong leader is no longer available, rival factions arrive all jostling for the number 1 position and they are usually grojups rather than an individual with strong leadership qualities. Discipline degenerates and they they don't care what riff-raff joins in with any excuse to use violence. There are three or four users with whom I refuse to share space on projects like these - for years wherever I go they slip in and quite unprovoked they drop their one-line offensive turds, complaining among other things about incivility while at the same time having the longest block logs in history. If you look at the edit hist of WT:WER you'll easily see that such people are among the highest posters to the page but they have never once made a positive contribution to it - not once. I'll come back, but only if a clear message is sent out to those who deliberately try to disrupt the work of WER, to sod off. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This is priceless. Wikipedia at its vintage best! --Epipelagic (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Membership has never been a prerequisite to participate. So...technically, you never really left. You can edit there any time. Maybe even nominate someone for the Eddy award. New nominations are always welcome. Or...you could visit the current Editor of the Week and say a few words of encouragement. That's something everyone should take 10 seconds to do. The front Project page needs a serious cleaning and updating. Most of it was created two years ago. Some good ideas but they never got off the ground. There is a lot to do. But one thing. I think you are wrong; I don't think there is anyone that deliberately disrupts WER. . Buster Seven Talk 08:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I do think there have been some people who have tried to use WER as a soapbox or as a tool for their own purposes, but Kudpung and I are likely talking about different people, at least in part. And Kudpung, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, those are mine, via the concept of "benevolent dictator", such as Linus Torvalds or Jimbo. I am constantly put in the awkward position of playing a role I have no authority to play, thus dependent on consensus to support myself. I would use the expression "First among equals", but many would take that out of context here at Wikipedia, which is very much NOT in tune with the real world use. Again, I didn't ask for it, but it seems that things go much smoother if I simply play the part. My personal life is utter hell right now, if I am to be honest, and this is why I gave up the bit for now. I can't make promises, but I will try to monitor WER a bit more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dennis. Don't add worrying about WER to your already topsy-turvy world. I got this. I'm there everyday and I won't let the place sink into oblivion as some might warn of. There is absolutely nothing going on that even hints at what has Kudpung so wound up. It would help if I knew which four or five (or is it six?) editors Kudpung wants us to ban. Not that I would suggest banning or even warning but then I would know whom to watch. Make sure they don't rip holes in the tent walls or turn over the potted plant in the corner. Or say things that Kudpung doesn't like. I've looked at the top 10 posters and done a little math. I know he doesn't mean himself or you or Isa. That leaves 7. I don't think he means GD or MM. That leaves 5...one of which is me. That leaves 4. Are those the four that need monitoring? Buster Seven Talk 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't expect to do it alone, but it isn't about "I", it is about "we". This is the only reason I've managed to do what I've done, with the support of everyone, not because they owe it to me (they don't), but because I try to take a stand consistent with what they already believe, and just use that velvet rope I keep harping about to lead them to where they already want to be. I can't stress that strong enough, and it isn't easy or intuitive.

I think you and Kudpung should go have a tea together, you would probably like each other outside of what you've been doing here. I've talked with him face to face (thanks to skype) a time or two, and found him to be a rather enjoyable conversationalist, and intriguing individual. We all come across different in type than in real life, this is important to remember. When you see someone here, whether it is Kudpung, you or me, you are only seeing two dimensions. As he has noted, Kudpung is a bit more eloquent using his voice rather than his fingers, and a bit more gruff in writing than real life. He is a linguist, I write commercial copy, it is no shock that we would make our best impressions using our natural mediums. In each case, we are much more than we appear. This is important to remember. That doesn't mean Kudpung and I always agree, but I always find his disagreeing completely tolerable. That is a common theme with me, isn't it? Toleration. It doesn't require agreeing or even liking, merely enduring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

editing break

Yes, a cup of soothing tea would be nice. You say Kudpung is a linguist and you write copy. Well, I'll have you know that I am a bit of a wordsmith myself. I once received an "A+" on an essay I wrote titled, "What I did on my summer vacation". So I guess that make us equals. I've spent the last couple of hours re-reading and remembering the WER talk page, basically from early on Jan 22 when your situation was first mentioned. What followed for the next three weeks was some very powerful wide-ranging long and fruit-filled discussion on a bevy of topics. More talking than had taken place at WER in the previous 6-7 months combined. some heated, some mild. From my reading and interpretation of the in-and-outs of what was at times some contentious talk over three weeks, at no time did I find any sign of any riff-raff or charlatans or rival factions with bad intent. There were no unprovoked or bad taste interjections by anyone that I could find. If we are going to continue down this road of questionable accusations and requests for forced behavior modification of editors that are participating and the request to ban them if they don't behave in a certain way, I think we will be acting contrary to what you created. WER is a vegetable garden: some are bitter some are sweet. What some people want to call weeds, I see as mis-labeled flowers. Is it a walled garden? No. Not yet. But it will be if we post a sign on the door that says, "Some editors are not welcome". Warnings of retaliation for what some don't like has no place at WER or at EOTW. . Buster Seven Talk 13:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We agree that we must take the bitter with the sweet. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, and WER will never be a walled garden as long as I'm associated with it. I'm just looking for everyone to tolerate more, persuade more and argue with each other less. You know me, I try not to declare who is right and wrong, but instead to get both sides to talk and understand each other. Besides, there are no saints at Wikipedia, we all could use a little improvement and I will happily raise my hand first to admit that clearly includes me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

One does not need to ban the riff-raff from the page, but it would be good if someone had the courage to say to them: 'Look, you do nothing but slip in here to drop veiled PA and other nonsense. Instead of trying to reduce the pleasure of the others who contribute here, please be more friendly and make positive contributions. Othwise please stick to what you do best elswhere on Wikipedia.' I'm not saying it will work, because such behahaviour in some individuals is so long-term that it has become a habit - one that is harder to kick than smoking, but if enough people say it, and if it doesn't work, that and together with their disparaging comments elsewhere and the polemic they maintain on their user pages will be enough to open an Arbcom case. And this year's arbcom is showing its muscles. That is more in line with 'editor retention' because if such editors continue the way they are going, sooner or later we are going to have to do without their contributions to content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this conversation was a turning point, where most of those who commented (with your notable exception) seemed content to allow the focus of the editor retention project to be diffused into the ocean of every concern brought by whomever to the discussion page. Unfortunately it's a self-perpetuating problem: as participants are discouraged by the overly-broad scope, there are fewer and fewer people left with a common purpose who can overrule others by consensus. At this point, perhaps the best course of action now is to ignore problematic comments, and open new threads, leaving the old ones for the rest to have their own discussions. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of something moderately bold, something that will probably piss off a couple of people. I ask for your patience, and trust. Without revealing details, Isaac made some extremely interesting points (and personal constructive criticism of myself) in an email that got me to thinking. My time and patience are precious right now, but I will spend a ration at WER and on this, to rebuild some core items. We are iced in with single digit temps expected this week, not sure if that will increase or decrease my time available, so again, patience is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lets see what K's suggestion looks like in a banner:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Look. You do nothing but slip in here to drop veiled PA and other nonsense. Instead of trying to reduce the pleasure of the others who contribute here, please be more friendly and make positive contributions. Othwise please stick to what you do best elswhere on Wikipedia. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, . Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I somehow don't think a statement like that will work. I think it would ruffle more feathers than calm them. I like the banner. I just think the message is too aggressive and would increase veiled PA and other nonsense. . Buster Seven Talk 13:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it won't work, but that's the whole point - throw them the bait until they are firmly stuck in something they cant wiggle out of with thier 'I'm untouchable - I'm a big content writer'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

So...it's a trap...like one of those mouse sticky boards used to catch vermin. Or like one of those big snapping Bear traps to catch really large prey. Interesting! . Buster Seven Talk 16:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we just need to direct off-topic discussion to a WER sandbox. As in the real world, an unprotected sandbox is usually full of cat turds, but better there than the main page. I'm working on some clarity as to the narrowness of the scope, not completely sure how I want to do this. All I know is that not everyone will like it at first, as is the case with any change. Unfortunately, I live in the middle of the winter storm and still have to go to work, meaning work is eating up even more of my time than usual. Low temps of 2 and 5, in North Carolina, which is ill prepared for this kind of weather. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As in the real world, an unprotected sandbox is usually full of cat turds - Dennis, you have a marvelous way with words! --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The creativity of us North Carolinians! :P --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly, I was proud of that one, having just the right amount of crass in it. Being a commercial copywriter, I like to create visuals in the mind of my readers. And yes, 23 years of living in NC has definitely rubbed off on me. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Dennis;
Thanks for the advice. Yeah - now that I look back on it, I should have waited a bit. Thanks for the advice - I will strive for at least 5000 edits before my next RFA. I appreciate your support. Thanks! --The one that forgot (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Chicken shit

I've created a little stub. LadyofShalott 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks LoS, That chicken shit article is what we needed, and is much better than the other alternatives. When the real world slows down, I will see about sourcing "small" usage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kewl! I'm on it! --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! It's but a bare start, so make it better! :) LadyofShalott 00:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly (or not) my grandparents had a homemade board game they called chicken shit (well when we were kids they would refer to it as chicken poo while we were around, naturally). It was very much like Trouble but with wooden pegs. The board was made of old counter top (probably the part that was cut out of the sink portion). They played it every morning to determine who "the boss" for the day was. Of course we always played them as well when we went to visit. Sort of a family tradition I suppose, I should probably build one of my own for my kids to leave at the trailer, it would be great fun. Anyway that is my story for today, thank you for creating the article LoS, and for expanding it MelanieN, Dennis, I hope you are enjoying your time off. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Presumably redirecting it to something like ANI, arbcom, or Jimbo's talk page would be considered pointy? NE Ent 00:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  I can promise that I wouldn't block you for it, which is easy to do since I'm not an admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• In Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, Paul Fussell included an entire chapter on chickenshit in the WWII-era militaries of the world (I believe it was entitled "Chickenshit: An Anatomy"). He noted, in passing, that: "The literature of chickenshit is extensive, and not surprisingly, since so many authors-to-be were, in the services, precisely the types that are chickenshit's eternal targets..." Once I dig up my paper copy of the book, I'll see if I can add anything useful to the article. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Lady of Shalott! This term was used in the weeks leading up to and following our (US) attack on Iraq for bombing the Twin Towers, opps I mean having nothing to do with the bombing of the Twin Towers. I took part in the first group in Maine that objected to that (this) war, so I remember the term very well. I will look for info and add it as time permits. Thanks again, LoS. You have made this day one of the many days that make me proud to be a Wikipedia editor. xxxooo (sorry...lost in emotion... :D) Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I simply couldn't help myself, and awarded her a well deserved barnstar for this. And it was sincere. I love it when an unusual article brings out the cooperative nature in all of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that my little RfD-rescue is inspiring others to help it become a decent article! LadyofShalott 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that "decent" is the right word? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey!!! Somebody moved it to Chicken manure and filled it up with agricultural information - reducing our "decent" article to a paragraph at the end. I object, your honor! --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Some people have no sense of humor. Dare I revert to the "decent" article, since a purportedly serious article on chicken shit is just ... stupid? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The cleaned up article is now at DYK and is full of pictures about chicken farming. So no, we shouldn't revert it. But maybe we could re-expand "Chicken shit", now a redirect, back into our decent naughty article? --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That is the correct answer and what I had already concluded when I saw it earlier. Until it is large enough to qualify for a DYK of it's own (and I would love to see and not participate in those discussions), then being a section within the larger topic really is the right solution. The good Lady may end up causing two articles to be born by putting her stone in this great big pot of soup. You have no idea how big I'm smiling right now. Her first draft might have looked a bit chicken shit (pun intended), but it spawned a lot of smiles and collaboration. On the best of days, that is all Wikipedia can hope for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing would please me more than for there to result two good (if not even WP:GOOD) articles from all of this. Anyone want to start a sandbox where we can collaborate on a separate article for the slang term? (No manure allowed in the sandbox!) LadyofShalott 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you, Lady. IMO it's nice that somebody thought it was worth their while to create an agricultural-themed article about chicken manure. But I don't agree that the slang expression should be included in the same article. They are too different. There should be an article about an agricultural product, a separate article about a slang expression, and appropriate hatnotes. There should be an article called "chicken manure" which begins "Chicken manure is the feces of chickens and is used as an organic fertilizer, especially for soil low in nitrogen" and is listed under categories like "organic fertilizers" and "chicken". There should be a separate article called "chicken shit" which begins "Chicken shit or chickenshit is a slang expression which means..." and is categorized under "profanity" and "slang". The chickenshit article doesn't have to be DYK-worthy, it can just be a nice (or rather "decent") little start-level article. Right now - does it really make sense to categorize Chicken manure under "slang"? --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. About "manure in the sandbox": Please see the section above. It's the cat turds you have to worry about. I will be proud to host this article as User:MelanieN/Chickenshit. Something to brag to my grandchildren about. Anybody in? --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's your sandbox, children. Have fun, but watch out for the ... you know. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Never mind, NorthAmerica beat me to it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have boldly moved content about the slang term back to Chicken shit. This was not intended to be a chickenshit move, but it appears that the overall topic can be covered in two articles... NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, NA, you are a good sport. I'll dispose (hygienically) of my unneeded sandbox. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hygienically is a good idea. Those aren't Tootsie Rolls in that sand, per our previous discussion....Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A big thank you to Northamerica1000 for that move, that article's quality and clarity of the subject was as good as chicken manure. Also, today, Melanie has had *poop* in her sandbox, meanwhile, I've added a draft for a fancy restaurant in my sandbox. Quite different, eh? P.S. here's some gloves for that job of yours, Melanie. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the gloves, Amaryllis, but I keep some handy now that I'm an admin. Disposing of sandboxes is the least of it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm about to get too busy to be here very often, but the last few days have been refreshing. I'm not missing the admin bit, but I am missing working on cultural articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I'm late to the party, but as a certified chicken owner I can tell you that chicken shit is, as the Dutch say, no cat pee. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• AHHH! The sweet fragrance of Country Life...from the cow pies in the pasture to the chicken shit in the yard to the Cafu just down the road. I'll take the city, thank you!. Buster Seven Talk 16:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)...Tootsie Rolls in the Sand could be a Country-Western chart-topper. . Buster Seven Talk 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In my best Ricky Van Shelton voice:
She said she would always be true,
And then I saw her with another man.
The day I found out my Tootsie Roll,
Was just another cat turd in the sand.
Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Dennis,

...you shouldn't've gone and done that. Really. BMK (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• That could be said of a great many things. Which in particular are you referring to, BMK? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Debitafying yourself. You're a good admin. BMK (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I'm flattered, but honestly, having the admin bit removed was something I did because I care about Wikipedia. I'm going through a brutal time in my personal life, divorce after 22 years, loss of life savings, that kind of thing. Nuclear situation. I'm smart enough to know that this will affect my judgement (and patience) so it is better that I don't have the temptation of the tools for a while. Really, that is what any good admin SHOULD do: realize your own limitations and act in Wikipedia's best interest. It's the same reason I've not been here much except the last few days. I'm a resourceful codger, so I'm confident I can turn things around in time, but until I get in a proper state of mind and body, Wikipedia is better off if I don't have the bit. I need to build my new single life, and with the little time and energy I have spare, maybe help herd the cats at WER. I would like to think my best work didn't use the admin tools anyway.

• A good number of folks here have been very supportive, very kind in email and here on my talk page. Wikipedia isn't therapy, so I try to not cry too much on the pages here, but we are a community. This is why I've been very forthcoming with the issues I'm facing, in very general terms. If we couldn't do at least a little of this, then we would have no authority to call ourselves a community. It is a fine line, and I've tried to walk it carefully as to not burden anyone. It's similar to why I use my real name here, don't hide where I live and work, and why I'm an open book here: we are a community, dysfunction and all. That said, I'm 100% responsible for my actions, and under no circumstances should I try to blame an error on my real life burdens. Surrendering the bit was the responsible and respectful thing to do. When I'm confident I will be a net plus with the admin bit, I will request it back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis: I certainly understand -- and support --your decision; I guess I was just feeling a bit beleaguered at seeing some really good, sensible and intelligent admins leave or desysop themselves for various reasons. That was selfish of me - you do what you need to do, and I know the good folks around here will gratefully welcome you back when things settle down and you feel you can ride the bit again. BMK (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, I may be feeling a bit whimsical, but your calming presence makes Wikipedia more of a WP:HAPPYPLACE and less of a WP:Dramaboard and you are missed by many. Take all the time you need, I have been there and done that but life can and does get better. Keep jamming! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)