Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anne bremner (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 17 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

BEFORE YOU POST - Discussions about the content of articles belong on the talk page for that article. This includes discussions about text, images, tags, or other physical things on the page. This way everyone can participate. If you like, you can post a note here pointing me to it. If you want to discuss general policy, ask for help on a page you haven't seen me on, or other topics that aren't related to the actual article, post it here. If you email me, drop me a note here please. Thanks -DB

Click here to post a new message. Be aware that this page is patrolled by a pack of helpful WikiJaguars, who may also be willing to assist you.

Request

Can you look on Magog the ogre talk page section titled another violation and either block or not as you see fit. I dislike having this hang over me, I find it stressful. Let's see how that natural justice works out. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ribfest

If Wiki develops Scratch and sniff technology for its images, I !vote that this is the first one -
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

You know about this, right? I would go but I will be barbecuing a pork loin.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go, take a camera. Good chance for photos but you will need lots of napkins to keep your hands and face clean. I'll add the festival to the list.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is notable enough to include yet, but I've started a sandbox to find out here: User:Dennis Brown/Texas Pete Twin City RibFest Help would be appreciated, so we can determine if it passes WP:N. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a bunch of sources on the talk page. I think it can pass wp:n with some help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and we ARE going. Likely Saturday after she closes the shop. Thanks for the heads up! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've watchlisted it and will see what I can do later. I've got to get some things done before the afternoon slips by. Enjoy the ribfest!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back! Great ribs, lots of cold beer and music. Think I will wait a while til I edit though.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Delaney

Hi, Dennis. Sorry I've been absent to see what's been happening with the above user. I have placed a note on his page and placed a statement on WP:AN. If he continues, I will support the block which you recommended based on WP:DISRUPT. I understand your frustration, so let's hope this gets sorted out sooner rather than later and close the discussion for archiving. About twinkle, I know, currently that users can add it to their account whenever they like. Have there been any discussions for it to be handed out at places like WP:PERM? Thanks. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It used to be able to be taken away more easily, but I don't think it needs to a matter of permissions as most people use it fine. Snowolf covers one way around this, where it can be taken away, but its a little unusual. It would take an ANI or AN discussion to take it away from someone, which may be happening there now. I took it to AN rather than ANI, as it tends to slightly slower and more thoughtful, with a bit less drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

No idea whose, but as you have dealt with Echigo mole perhaps you can hazard a guess on this [1] fellow. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor issue

Hi Dennis

In this discussion Talk:Luka_Magnotta#No_connecting_evidence - User:Wnt has accused me of violating Wikipedia:No legal threats - can you please investigate/comment - I have notified the user here User_talk:Wnt#Discussion - thanks - Youreallycan 22:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I addressed it earlier at that discussion. Any time you mention anything "legal", people tend to get a little hair trigger. I think it was just an honest misunderstanding, so just moving on is best and trying to avoid the "L" word when possible. Linking to the policy should be sufficient. Another one of those areas that isn't about right or wrong, just about the best way to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna jump in here, not that anyone asked me for my opinion. :-) I've never seen anyone refer me to Wikipeda's terms of use before in a discussion. If I were at the receiving end of it, I would (a) be bewildered because those kinds of documents are VERY long, very legal (despite the fact it says it isn't), and generally hard to understand - and, here, YRC, you referred to the entire document without pinpointing a particular section and (b) be somewhat intimdated by the reference. Therefore, regardless of whether the statement violates WP:NLT, it's not a constructive thing to say in a content discussion.
As for NLT itself, it's one of WP's wonderful policies where it never clearly defines what a legal threat is. Instead, it defines what it isn't and expects the reader to figure out the rest. That said, I think your comment, YRC, might fall under the section called "Perceived legal threats". Admittedly, it's subjective, how someone else is going to interpret your statement, and just because the other editor did perceive it as a legal threat doesn't mean their perception was "reasonable". My own feeling is it is a legal threat but I can see that others might disagree with me. Either way, the section called "Rationale for the policy" sums up the situation, even if it is NOT a legal threat: the comment "inhibits free editing" and "creates bad feelings". (As an aside, YRC, I think it's absolutely wonderful that you come to Dennis in these situations and lay yourself open to scrutiny. It shows not only good judgment, but real courage. Kudos.)
And so now, Dennis, we have to add the "L" word to the list of no-nos in the English language? It's gonna be particularly tough on lawyers, of which there are many at WP. "Your Honor, my client's conduct was perfectly L." Heh. End of long-winded opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, using the L word does set off red flags at Wikipedia, often like a hair trigger. I didn't see YRC's statement as a legal threat, even if I would have worded it differently (I say that a lot, in a lot of conversations it seems), but I didn't see it as a breach of NLT. I tried to simply ramp down the drama and get both sides to not use the L word or refer it anything that implied it should be a concern, would the goal of not coming across as taking a side. Bbb, you are of course welcome to provide your perspectives on that page as well, and I always encourage anyone that thinks I'm mistaken to do so in the same venue. I have been known to be mistaken from time to time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, Dennis, I've never been mistaken about anything. Well, there was that time in 1854, but it doesn't really count as I wasn't born yet. Besides, if you really examine the transcript of the trial, I was probably more right than wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm grateful that I wasn't born with the burdens of perfection. Perhaps this is why I am more tolerant and forgiving of other's shortcomings, as I have plenty of my own. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a reply to Bbb23's comment that, ... the comment "inhibits free editing" and "creates bad feelings".

The comment diff is completely correct and true its just that no one understands it/or often it seems, want to accept it. - I often want to explain it to people so as they get it - we are all totally legally responsible for all our edits here. Willy nilly replacing content that has been removed is not a good idea legally as you become completely responsible for it being in the article. Free editing is not a reality - responsible policy compliant editing is.The Foundations terms of use is being linked to a lot lately as I have seen - Letting people know there responsibilities is beneficial imo and is a way to move to a more responsible editing environment - . A for the "creates bad feelings" issue - the user that I was having the content discussion with stated that he was ok about it and in the end comment he did get it - / accept the reality diff - The user, User:Wnt that asserted it was, "coming really close to WP:NLT territory" diff and I have a very poor relationship, I have previously requested him not to edit any biographical article on en wikipedia - I don't think my comment was a legal threat in any way - but I will be careful in future not to mention the reality of contributing here, so as not to allow editors that have a historic poor relationship with me to allege such serious claims. Youreallycan 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bbb is also worried that your phrasing might also be consider as giving a "chilling" effect, although technically, that kind of was the idea. It is a slippery slope and one where we all need to either tread lightly when telling someone, or perhaps asking someone else that works with BLPs to make the point to them, perhaps in their own words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its something I have told users many times when they say as this user did , "I didn't add the content" - Yes you did - the discussion wasn't about anything else than that point. There was no "chilling affect" as the content was cited and just disputed as undue weight in a BLP - it wasn't like I had removed it and was trying to stop him replacing it - the discussion was only about the I didn't add it /responsibility point and the user was fine about it. To be honest I am bemused that User:Bbb23 considers my comments in that thread a violation of WP:NLT , something I can be blocked indefinitely for until I retract the threat. Youreallycan 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I were an admin, I would absolutely not block you for the "threat". My argument that it constitutes a threat would not be persuasive to many other editors, and even I acknowledge it isn't clear. To block you in such circumstances would be unjustifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, anyway in my position its clearly better when they say, "I didn't add it" that I avoid telling them that they did and their responsibilities in regards to that - thanks for the feedback - regards - Youreallycan 16:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I hope my feedback was constructive (Dennis's always is), even if you didn't agree with everything I said. It certainly wasn't my intent to pick on you. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this odd, but I actually go out of my way to seek advice from people whom I often disagree, but respect and are friendly with. This gives me a more balanced set of opinions than seeking only those that agree with me. I find that for improving myself, this is a better solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I avoided this before because it seemed like a mentor discussion, but I should point out that I'm not going to avoid a topic, or avoid debating an issue about it, just because one editor with an extreme opposing position says to stay away from it based on my opinions of how Wikipedia should do things. He keeps saying over and over that he's given me this command as if that means something. And it's wrong to say that I "accused [him] of violating WP:NLT". I said he was coming close, which obviously indicates by my reading he hadn't quite done so. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is between you two. He asked me to offer an opinion, I did, that both of you probably need to worry about content and less about legal issues. If there is a concern about a BLP, I suggest taking it to WP:BLPN. I haven't, nor wouldn't, discourage you from participating in any venue or discussion regarding content of an article or any other topic. Youreallycan doesn't "answer to me", I'm just a friend helping him out. When it comes to BLP matters, I consider him more skilled than I am, so tend to stay out of his way and only comment on singular issues, like on that talk page. My goal is to provide a moderating voice when needed on the side issues, then get out of the way and just let editors do their jobs, with no interference from me. On a personal note, he can be a bit grumpy at times, but he is actually a pretty good guy once you get to know him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a personal attack?

Hello Mr Brown.

an IP said on his talk page that This This wasn't a personal attack.

Could you clarify that for me please?Scott Delaney (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm one more attack edit from the IP from bringing this to WP:ANI. Accusations of inserting libel are unacceptable. --NeilN talk to me 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a personal attack?Scott Delaney (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a personal attack. It borders on legal threatening, though.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if it's a legal threat, I advise on speedy block. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 06:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just got to work and I see this is at ANI now. It is quite incivil, bordering both on a personal attack and a legal threat, but coming up a little short on both. Normally something I would strongly warn for rather than block for a single incident, but it looks more complicated and getting aired out at ANI, so will let that process work. May pipe in there if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a number of admins and known reliable BLP familiar editors are on the talk page for the article, so I will leave it in their capable hands. If I see more legal sounding threats, I will warn the user, and may still. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Info!--Scott Delaney (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter issue

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Hi Dennis Brown, IP 31.146.35.112 who was blocked a few days ago is back and is continuing with their disruptive edits at the Turkish people article. Now they are going by the user name "Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood". Would you please be able to help me as I'm pretty certain this is still User:Ledenierhomme playing their annoying tricks.Turco85 (Talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis, (about User:Claude A. R. Kagan)

Could you replace the first line on this user page with the following code for me, (the page is protected from editing)

<div style="text-align: center;">{{Deceased Wikipedian}}

'''Rest in peace - [[Claude A. R. Kagan]] - October 7, 1924 - April 26, 2012'''</center>

Thanks ! Penyulap ☏ 08:38, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Alison beat me to it. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wanting to edit despite the page protection, after a suggestion on my talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 12:12, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
The page isn't edit protected, only move protected. You should be able to edit it just fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's early, or I'm an idiot. Pick one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make a draft and I will unprotect long enough for you to add, or just add per you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per me is cool. thanks, at the moment, that is all we are after, although, now you mention it, would you add a redlink to his article, per above, that is all that is needed in the foreseeable future. Penyulap ☏ 12:23, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I would say give it a day, come up with anything you think is appropriate after talking with others on your page, then make one change. Since it will be a redlink for now, another day won't hurt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and it is a good idea. I think a mention of his full name might be discussed as well, rather than a day, we may take some time longer, there is the article to do, and that is going to turn up a great many interesting things to consider. The man was a genius. Penyulap ☏ 12:33, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will be ready to help when you are ready. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Hi Dennis, thanks very much for blocking Rcodella as a sockpuppet.

I have just determined that EcFitzsimmons is also a sockpuppet. Same articles, same ideological edits. Plus, a very curious User page that basically admits it. And, edits that have been criticized by at least one other editor, see [2] and possibly early comments by Nolelover. Shall i do another report/analysis, or is there a possible shortcut?

Thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Turns out, Cbislingtion is yet another instance. I'll see if there are more before i submit. Richard Myers (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, and ask to check for a CU to check for sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No response here yet. I'm not feeling impatient, there's no hurry, but i'm wondering if the document needs to be marked open instead of closed. Thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind?

The reinsertion of the PA is a bit over the top. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I almost blocked him before this incident, but I'm forever the optimist I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ooohh ooooh ooooh can I decline the blatant coming unblock request? please please please? Egg Centric 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not an admin, no. We do not want to taunt the trolls, Egg, it only makes them angry and then they become more destructive, and that makes more work for me and others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't bother templating them, so they can figure it out on their own I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, would you mind revoking talk page access? That PA been put back post-block. I revoked it, but self-reverted. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and I removed the taunting.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of another user

Dennis, if you have time, could you take a look at the contributions of User:Risanila; in particular his contributions on Haj Mirza Sayyed Ali Aqa Qadhi Tabatabai Tabrezi? Several users, including myself, have warned this user for adding lots of info sourced to blogs, or using other language wikis as sources. I gave him a final warning, and he persisted. My guess is that he either doesn't know about talk pages, or doesn't have the ability to respond. After me telling him I'd request a block, oddly enough, he did add some properly sourced info, though I don't know if that is merely luck or that he somehow understood how RS works. Could you take a look, and either block or warn as you feel appropriate? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adjwilley asking you to hammer out details on a reply at The Administrators Noticeboard.--Scott Delaney (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at wikipedia:AN

I saw at The administrators noticeboard that the discussion about the CIR issue is still open. do you think you mark it as closed?--Scott Delaney (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It will be fine. The discussion should be closed by someone not involved, after allowing anyone to object who cares to. This is part of the normal process. My request to close wasn't really trying to get someone to hurry up and close, but to just let others know that the situation has been settled, and they are free to close it if they choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invercargill airport

I would like to request permission to use this non-free image on the International Technical Stopover section of Invercargill Airport.Just let me know if you have any questions.Thanks!--Scott Delaney (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That probably won't be possible. That photo really isn't about the airport. To qualify as Fair Use, the photo must be substantially covering the subject matter, and this photo isn't. If you found a photo of the airport itself, then you might have a case. User:Moonriddengirl is probably the best person on Wikipedia for determining what is and isn't proper for Fair Use as she works with Copyright all the time. She is always a good person to get a second opinion from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and List of Twitter users

I don't understand why they must be merged. In Talk:List of Twitter users, I requested that "@drew" account bought for one million dollars by Drew Carey be added, yet someone opposed inclusion of it. Even "non-notable" accounts, like one used by Carey's current blond girlfriend and another by Britney Spears, can be worthy of inclusion, but not until the discussion is over. I couldn't discuss this in either talk page; replying there can be distracting. Since you are an administrator right now, and you supported merger, why else must they be merged? --George Ho (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter that I'm am admin, my voice is no greater than yours in the matter. I supported a merge because I felt they were redundant. I would suggest just discussing it on the talk page, it is active there, but everyone seems pretty reasonable in the conversation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Steen

Consensus from whom precisely? I get utter nonsense posted by bgwhite who doesn't know his aperture from his elbow and I don't see any difference between a list of Steen subjects (which are fully referenced in his book and online) and a list of, say, songs performed by Elvis Presley.--Autolycus 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autolycus1 (talk • contribs)

  • WP:BRD is the guiding light here. You added, he reverted, now you discuss it on the talk page with others. This may take a week or two. But this is how we do things here, to prevent edit warring and disruption. I'm not getting involved in the content itself, as it is outside of my field of expertise and would choose to be the objective admin in this case. I will say that comparing it to another article is generally ignored as a rationale at Wikipedia, via WP:ATA, which is a worthwhile read for newer editors wishing to get involved in heated discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP:125.236.44.45

This IP Is asking for their block to be reviewed. Do you think you could do this? Cheers!--Scott Delaney (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'd just wait for another admin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also see no request that needs to be reviewed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott, block reviews are handled by a variety of admins who carefully watch for them and reply on their own time table. No action or reminder is usually ever needed. Sometimes, a request my be put off for many hours because an admin is researching. While I appreciate your concerns, this is likely an area you need not worry about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Older in Sockpuppets

I notice you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobaifo after putting them in instead of SatiricalTruth as the older. Tobaifo only started up after SatiricalTruth's last edit. Not that blocking the usernames would do much, it looks to me they are just grabbing a new username any time trouble occurs, I believe User:Ertwo2 and User:Sifour4 are the same and just wonder where the 1 and 3 went to and who 5 is now! Dmcq (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the purpose of SPI, we always list the name that had the first edit as Master, regardless of where that edit came from. As for closing, that doesn't mean they are innocent, sometimes it just means I can't definitely connect the two, at least to the point that I'm willing to indef block someone. Usually, if they are, they will either drop that account, or eventually show their hand and it can be refiled. You have to err on the side of caution, or you end up blocking people who aren't guilty. Just like the theory of the US justice system, it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. Eventually, we will catch them if they are sockpuppeting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly pointing out the funny business about older as I thought I had followed the directions properly and I couldn't figure out why you changed it and I still can't but suit yourself. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I changed it because that is how they tell us to do it, that is all. It isn't about my personal opinion. I'm just a trainee, so I just do the paperwork like they tell me. The account that is the oldest is always listed as the master, no matter the order of the individual edits that lead it to SPI. I don't know enough to question it too deeply yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry looking at it again I must have misread the logs and contributions. Dmcq (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that is why we have procedures there to fix it. People do it all the time, it is an easy mistake to make, and usually people are more focused on the problem, not the paperwork. That is why they call us "clerks". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting permission

I would like to get permissions to edit IP talk pages. I promise i will Only edit IP talk pages to add the old IP warnings template, Or enage in a conversation with that user..Thanks!--Scott Delaney (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to discuss this with your mentor. As I stated in the WP:AN discussion, I am leaving all decision making in their hands, on their time table. For me to grant anything wouldn't be fair, and would sound like I don't trust him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philcha

Please consider to unprotect the user page, looking at this proposal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and msg left there. Let me know when it is ready for full protection and I will be happy to assist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page can be protected again now. Thanks for you help. Richerman (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the user page. I'm assuming the talk page should be left open, unless requested otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right, thanks. Richerman (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My username

Hi Dennis ncould you give me some feedback on my request tonthis nuser - User_talk:Mathsci#My_Username - Tje user removed my first request for removal/comment without even a edit summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&diff=prev&oldid=497681700 diff] I have added a diff and used my one revert and replaced my question to them - imo its a good faith question that deserves a good faith response - thanks - Youreallycan 08:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user has deleted my question again without an action or feedback at all with an edit summary of "please stop posting on my talkpage I have read your post£ - Dennis - I am allowed and it should be respected without a good reasdon to take a new name and not be refered to by my old username - am I correct it that and to ask politely and with good faith for users to allow me that respect? - See here the edit history in regards to the users talkpage in respect to my question to him - This diff by the User:Mathsci is the most revealing imo - I asked politely and in good faith and the user just deleted my question without even an explanation/edit summary at all?Youreallycan 08:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(watching, because of the request above) It reveals more about the other one than about you, I would not argue, perhaps just respond with something like "you probably meant me, using my old name", or something more witty, - putting things into perspective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting Gerda and yes, perspective is a good thing to remember as per your posts in regards to the above issue - The user has now remover my previous username and replaced it with my current one , {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=497678902&oldid=497678244 diff] - so that has resolved this specific request although I would like some feedback from Dennis as regards whet I could have done to communicate better in this instance, here or via emailI - I have had similar previous issues with editors and good faith discussion has occurred between us and they have all accepted my request to use my new username - I was surprised in this case when I opened a discussion in a polite manner on the users talk page when they failed to discuss at all and just deleted it without even an edit summary . = Youreallycan 11:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the formatting as I am editing on a small mobile device = Youreallycan 11:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gerda is right, and if they corrected it, I wouldn't labor it further as the point is already made. Sounds like you did the right thing, and yes, you do have the right to make a request like that on their talk page even if they have asked you to avoid their talk page, in my opinion, as this isn't an argument about content or a personal comment, but is instead a neutral, procedural request. I don't see any problem with how YRC handled it. It wasn't the only option, but it was an acceptable one. Persistence is different than harassment. I wouldn't have pushed it any further, but I likely would have done the second post as well. It might be annoying to the user (as was the improper name), but the request is a valid one, and the editor did remove without comment, so YRC had no idea if it was ignored or not. Had he not changed it, I was going to just go in and change it myself as a 3rd party. YRC shouldn't do that, but anyone else could, again, in my opinion. Being polite doesn't require being passive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Another precious line, the last one, thank you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Dennis and to you Gerda for the advice and investigation of the issue - I wanted to just remove it myself but held back as I am editing under a voluntary one revert condition, this is helping me a lot and I will be continuing it for the foreseeable - Best regards - Youreallycan 02:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Hey Dennis, would you mind reconsidering semi-protecting Mumia Abu-Jamal‎? Since those socks were blocked another account has been registered to make the change. I'm not sure what the motivation is here, it's a rather odd edit to be persistently trying to add. No big deal either way, we can always RBI. Speaking of which, would you mind taking care of the latest sock User:Dzandzuba? Thanks! SÆdontalk 00:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like more socks were started. I went ahead and protected a month, which should discourage the creation of more socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EASYMONEY

Hopefully I'm not taking over - just brainstorming. I think I'm done with it for now and it would be a good time to get a few more brains in the pot. Feel free to ping me later on if there's an area in particular I can contribute. I think where the value of my participation is greatest is in understanding the mindset, needs and language of the reader. Since all such documentation has been created by Wikipedians, without the input of COIs, we haven't created something the average person in my profession understands. Under the current theme (which may change) the essay would stand strong if even anti-paid editing advocates find it acceptable. User:King4057 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will have to look at it a bit more, I can see some more tweaks I would like, but don't want to rush into it until i can digest your changes. The pendulum of ideas is swinging wide right now ;) I generally like to see that early in the process, so don't take it personal if I remove or change ideas as well. Some things will get added, removed, added back, removed again, then finally added finally, so any removal doesn't always mean "no" as much as "I'm not sure that is needed, but maybe". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, much of the essay is currently aligned with my personal point of view in an area where Wikipedians have vastly different perspectives. I think where I struggle most is PR types are constantly saying they need clear instructions on how to contribute. As you can see, Wikipedia has mountains of instructions that COIs rarely take the time to read. Additionally, folks like CREWE/PRSA will keep expressing disappointment until the rules and instructions fit their needs (instead of Wikipedia's). I think, in order to make a guide simple but also effective, we need to focus on what is ok 100% of the time. On the other hand, I'm still looking at the half-dozen essays/guidelines we have and wondering if we really need more. I like the idea of a task force to clean up and improve COI instructions generally. It's just much easier to create something new than engage in community-wide consensus-building. User:King4057 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you two don't mind, I'll also take a look at the essay. I would love to see Wikipedia engage the COI editors rather than ban them all. It would certainly improve our coverage of small notable organizations which is currently very poor. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are always welcome in any project I start. The more eyes, the better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DanceKing5

Sorry to trouble you, but in light of this last block, could you please take note of the fact that the user is persisting in bad faith accusations which include, yet again, an insinuation that he is being "stalked". This is among the first contributions the user has made after returning to wikipedia (which indicates to me that such antagonism will continue unless further warnings are given). Semitransgenic talk. 06:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like you both are in a bit of heated discussion, which I think is acceptable, as that is how it typically works. Since he has offered to leave you alone, perhaps you both should try to stay away from personal comments, as it looks like the discussion is moving more or less forward. I will try to look in from time to time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Ah shit, I'm editing from my phone and must have misclicked. Sorry about that! Keilana|Parlez ici 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[why have you objecting to the posting of a picture iof me ion my wiki page where it has both been in the pucblic domain and where I actually also hold the copyright. Please advise. Thank you. ]]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&oldid=497951633"