User talk:Dennis Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
My barnstars

Brunch foods[edit]

Assorted brunch foods

Hi Dennis: check out List of brunch foods and help to improve it if you're interested, at the very least as a respite from all that admin work you do. Face-smile.svg Also, consider joining WP:TAFI, which has undergone some recent changes, such as focusing on only one article a week (instead of several) in efforts to improve collaboration. North America1000 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • That looks much more interesting than what I have been working on. I've been debating some new content work, and this might fit the bill. Being an admin who walks into/is dragged into the politics around here...sucks. By now, you know some of the pitfalls, I'm sure. I'm no expert on brunch, although I have been known to enjoy the occasional Bloody Mary or mimosa. I assume this is going to vary wildly by country as well, but that is a problem that can be dealt with as it grows, even splitting off into countries if needed. Dennis Brown - 13:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Lately, my focus is more on content, with admin stuff focused on matters regarding deletion and patrolling (e.g. AfD, speedy candidates, blocks), which are also highly content-related. I appreciate your objective mindset when dealing with all of the behavioral-related problems that occur on the wiki. I can see how this type of work can be a drain. North America1000 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Govt. Gandhi Memorial Science College[edit]

Hi Dennis: I was perusing AfD and noticed your recent nomination here. I have created a new article at Govt. Gandhi Memorial Science College, so it's no longer a red link. Perhaps a merge may be in order? Cheers, North America1000 15:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • That whole discussion was confusing to me, really it should have been a delete but I could see that wasn't going to happen. They really weren't reading the policy correct, but I don't have time for a battle. A redirect does make more sense, since there is no policy that regulates playing fields other than GNG, in spite of their claims. Dennis Brown - 15:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, the notability guideline at WP:NCRIC is based upon sportspeople, rather than sports grounds. North America1000 15:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added merge tags to both articles, to merge Gandhi Memorial Science College Ground → Govt. Gandhi Memorial Science College. North America1000 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly, and that sounds like a good idea. Dennis Brown - 15:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Hey, you broke the indentation! I usually wait a week before performing merges after tagging, to allow time for people to potentially discuss it if they want to. North America1000 15:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry, net is down, on phone. Fun. Dennis Brown - 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Give me steam, and how you feel to make it real...[edit]

Kue putu being steamed – I want to get one of these contraptions

Per your help with various list foo past and present, a new one that may hopefully catch your interest: List of steamed foods. The more I research, the more notable foods are found to expand the list. North America1000 11:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of the times I used to go down to Steamer's, a pub on the coast near Sunset Beach, North Carolina and shuck oysters by the bucketload, along with multiple mugs of cold beer. They would put them on sale for a quarter each (this was the 90s) and we would spend several dollars getting drunk and full. I will try to find some time later, when my brain gets up to speed. I've been avoiding the place when I'm on Vicodin (another minor but invasive surgery, nothing of note), and I'm hoping today will be good enough I can avoid taking it. Dennis Brown - 12:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We used to cross Mad Inlet and hang out on Bird Island. No authorities...we did whatever we wanted. I tried to go at every opportunity I could and introduced a good number of people to this untouched beach. A bit sad that it is now connected because the inlet filled in. I left my thoughts and signed the Kindred Spirit several times...umm, 23 years ago now. Clams are better roasted than steamed and we dug them there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hanging out a a pub shucking and eating oysters and drinking beer. A private beach island, eating roasted, freshly dug clams. Living the dream. North America1000 18:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, until this divorce is over, I'm drinking Kool-Aid out of a Flintstone's glass, eating peanut butter and just saying "shucks". I'm saving where I can, planning a decent vacation once this all over, say 8 or 9 months time. The beach is just 4 hours away, so odds are good I'll land there, ready for a couple of weeks R&R. Dennis Brown - 18:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, be sure to add in some time to smell the roses. Check out List of steamed foods now. Still growing. Here's a tacky joke – Q. Why are divorces so expensive? A. Because they're worth it. Face-smile.svg North America1000 20:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Late apology[edit]

Hello. As I was confidently working at ANI and knowing just the right thing to be done when I remembered a conversation we had a while back: User_talk:Chillum/Archive_49#ANI_2

I realized looking back that you were giving me very good advice and that I was not taking it in. I was confusing administrative discretion with the customs of a particular part of the project. Discussion closures on noticeboards do indeed have a different definition of "involved". While my administrative actions were correct I did misjudge how things were done at that page and you were correct to point that out to me.

You started here around the same time I did back in 2006 and I have always respected your judgement. Chillum 00:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Chillum, that means a lot. All too often I may say things the wrong way, but I have appreciated your willingness to listen and give the benefit of the doubt, as well as listen with an open mind even when you disagree. As for this event, not many people would go digging into their archives, no less take the time to leave a comment. That speaks volumes as to your character. Dennis Brown - 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I just hope I did not discourage you from giving me further advice. I enjoy a spirited debate and I know that can seem confrontational sometimes. Chillum 00:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Not deterred at all, and the same holds true for you. I'm certainly not above friendly advice from time to time. As for spirited debates, I've always said it takes some heat to dig out all the possibilities, so I'm never one to shy away from a spirited, but polite, debate. Too many cross the line around here, turning what could be a great debate into a mud slinging event, but I'm comfortable saying neither of us fall into that catagory. Dennis Brown - 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Request[edit]

(moved from above)

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia, so it took me a good ten minutes and another web search to figure out how to ask you a question on your talk page. But I'm here now, and I have a question.

I was trying to create a wiki page on the artist Polite Fiction. After reading the article on what warrants speedy deletion, I understand why my page was taken down. However, I was hoping there would be a way to retrieve what I had written. If you know anything about that, it would be much appreciated.

In any case, I was happy to find your polite letter in my notifications. I hope everyone on this website is as kind and helpful.

Pixelatinate (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • You probably need to go to WP:AFC to build the article. As a side note, WP:Teahouse is the best place to go for general help and answers. Dennis Brown - 18:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Deletion of Mass_killings_in_capitalist_regimes[edit]

I am a little surprised at this whole issue concerning this article. I recently made a defense of it on its talk page which was deleted, and does not seem to be recoverable. I would like to begin the process of appealing its deletion, and prevention of recreation. It is a perfectly notable, verifiable, neutral, non-fringe article. I would say that its deletion stands in need of questioning and justification. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • My deletion was purely procedural, it has gone to AFD twice and been deleted many times for being recreated. Essentially, we admin try to protect the decision of the community, not our own. The best place to go is WP:REFUND and ask for a copy to be "userfied", ie: moved to your user space. Then it can undergo review after being brought up to standards for WP:BLP and the like, and if it is likely to survive an AFD, an admin can move into mainspace under the original name. This is standard operating procedure for an article that has been community deleted at AFD. We can't disregard the community's decision at AFD....if they delete, we must delete, but we can accommodate the opportunity to rehabilitate the article, starting with REFUND, if a valid argument is given. Dennis Brown - 09:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"It was deleted before" is not a valid answer to the above question. If you delete a whole entire article and it's very simple why you deleted it, you should be able to state very simply why you deleted it. Now try again, this time without avoiding the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.241.86.79 (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • The reason is here. The community voted to delete it. The community voted that no article may just be recreated after it is deleted. The community decided admin shall be the ones to enforce the policies. I'm an admin, I saw it, I followed the wishes of the very community that picked me to serve as admin. My job wasn't to decide if it should be deleted (the community did that). My job was interpret that this was exactly the situation covered by the G4 criteria I linked, and use the tools to do the wishes of the greater community, as their proxy. It is that simple. You might do better to calm down and stop throwing a tantrum or you will just end up blocked. You have no Rights here, you aren't special, you are no different than any other editor. As I've said above, WP:REFUND is the place to go if you want it reviewed. If that isn't good enough, then you need to file a complaint at WP:ANI and see how far that gets you. Dennis Brown - 13:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That criteria was not even met. It was a dramatic improvement over the deleted article it replaced with references and whatnot. The community voted against its own rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.49.4 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Where can the article's supporters discuss the matter with the community again? I'd like to have a constructive discussion with it. I'm sorry if you're annoyed at the drama, but I want to do what I can to prove its validity to the community. I just don't know what page to discuss on. I opened the topic on the talk page of the most recently-deleted one, but I don't know if it's the right place. Thanks in advance. Socialistguy (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I keep saying WP:REFUND but no one seems to be listening, that is what is tiring. That is the venue, period, no other exists. It is fairly informal. Restoring a page after multiple deletions isn't something that the community just votes on, it requires discussion and weighing of policy, as an admin has to be the one to pull the trigger here, so there is some consensus to gauge and policy to read. Dennis Brown - 15:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Dennis. I will bring the issue to WP:REFUND. I realize that you were acting in good faith, as a routine matter. However, it was very unfortunate. I only brought the matter to you based on the boilerplate language that recommends approaching the person deleting it first. If there is anything you can do to facilitate the process, I would greatly appreciate it. Perhaps there are some non-substantial changes to be made (title, wording, etcetera) that would make it more clearly appropriate. It is a matter that I am supporting in good faith. I really believe that when considered fair-mindedly, it will prevail. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What little I gleaned from the context: Only use 1st rate sources. If you can't find a top notch source, don't put it in the article. Don't make it a personal axe to grind with any economic system, stick to the dry facts. Expect others will disagree in good faith, which is what the talk page is for. These types of articles will always create a dust up, so you are better off starting with material that is the most obvious, best sourced info that everyone can agree on. THEN build from there. Dennis Brown - 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GG/Arb/Bernstein[edit]

Seriously, go read the threads at /r/kotakuinaction etc. You might find the additional context as to why the GG SPAs are out in force for Dr. Bernstein. This bullheadedness from Masem is exasperating, and Dr. B's tone is really restrained given the awfulness they direct at him.

72.198.218.115 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the pointers and polite tone, I'm reading through some now, although reddit isn't a site I normally read. Dennis Brown - 22:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown, Apologies for the interruption. While I can and do empathise with editors about whom comments are made off-Wiki, I cannot agree with suggestions that such mitigates poor behaviour on-Wiki. If, however, as suggested above, you are taking off-Wiki matters into consideration, I direct you to the following site, specifically purposed for the disparagement of editors who do not align to a particular point of view w.r.t the Gamergate controversy topic space. Based on the usernames of the contributors, they include a number of Wikipedia editors, including those participating at WP:AE. Please also see this diff for an example of the site being advertised on-Wiki.

NB: I have been mentioned on the site referenced, and on various threads at Reddit. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The idea of spending so much energy on one single idea, GG, boggles my mind. I can kind of understand the POV warriors for I/P or religion, but GG? I managed to avoid all that controversy by staying away from the Arb hearing and the articles. That makes me uninvolved, but still confused that people can devote so much of their life to something that history will consider a blip on the radar. I looked at the link, but looking at all these comments on the different sites I find a mix of misogamy, fanboyism, simple hate, denial and juvenile antics that simply have no originality or artistic value, written by people who obviously need to go outside for a change. Quality wise, most of it is one step below ASCII porn from the 80s. So it really isn't influencing my vote, the practical realities of getting things done at Wikipedia is what is influencing me to compromise. My opinions are pretty obvious, but in the end something needs to be done that will affect some kind of positive change, and that is the best I could do. Dennis Brown - 03:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown, I thank you for your kind reply, and appreciate your attention on this matter; as I appreciate all work done by our Admins to ensure the smooth running of the project. I broadly agree with your assessment of the various sites; though I feel you may have done 80s ASCII porn a disservice in the comparison. My purpose in highlighting the site was to address claims that the respondent editor's on-Wiki actions were mitigated by off-Wiki harassment. I do not believe that this is supportable given that editor's own off-Wiki actions. I do appreciate the thought which you have brought to the WP:AE discussion, and the independence of that thought, and that you are seeking some kind of positive change. I share your belief that an IBAN seems a bit futile, and a consequent concern that we will be back at WP:AE at some stage to discuss essentially the same behaviours. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not video games, it's politics. Politics is why it attracts Sommers and Breitbart's Yiannopoulis as so called "GamerGate supporters". It's political "stay on message" along with true believers. It's the only reason why it stays alive for so long. Best analogy I can think of is abortion and gun ownership. One faction says "It's murder and there's no way to write the article except as 'this is murder. children are dying. Any editor that wants to add anything that says it's not murder is, in fact, supporting more murders. '" Another faction denies it's murder at all while others see nuances and larger aspects. We have entrenched editors that believe they are morally obligated to call it murder and we have others in the same camp working to keep it on the "it's murder" message. They have been largely successful. There is certainly a huge element of GamerGate that is threats against women but it's not the only aspect. Mssem has patiently tried to add more aspects that explain why people like Christina Hoff Sommers and Milo Yiannopoulos are involved or even care. (as far as I know, they are not gamers, game developers, game journalists or misogynists so why are they so prominent as GG supporters? What are they supporting?). Imagine trying to edit the abortion or gun control articles, and editors label you as being part of a group of murderers or assisting in those murders. Imagine the gamergate article and everyday being accused of enabling rape and death threats. It's gone as far as suggesting that Masem should go offsite and try to convince others not to commit rape or death threats as if he personally knew them or knew of them. How long would an editor last on the abortion articles if they told any editor that documents pro-choice viewpoints or descriptions to the article would be better off convincing their friends not to commit murder, rather than write about the pro-choice viewpoint? We have a lot more experience dealing with those topics, but the playbook for the politics surrounding it is the same. That we have failed to recognize that it is a contentious political target ispart of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The analogy above is not useful. All Masem needs to do is go to WP:RSN and make a case that statement X is supported by reliable source Y, and/or go to WP:NPOVN to show that statement X is WP:DUE. Masem has posted at a variety of places (example 1 and example 2)—I have seen several more, but I have never seen any that produced an outcome satisfactory to Masem. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
One problem is that many of the sources are basically op-eds and almost inevitably the cacophony of protest is reported and commented upon in more detail. However, until MarkBernstein is removed or retires from the topic area there is little point in getting involved. There is a serious case of RGW going on and unfortunately some admins - even among those who have commented - have long-standing povs of their own regarding such issues. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the same thing that was said about myself, TheRedPenOfDoom, Tarc and the other "Horsemen." "Just get rid of them and the problems will go away." Now, someone else steps up to defend NPOV and living people on the article, and the exact same canard is trotted out, "just remove that person and the problem goes away!" Yes, obviously, if you get rid of all the Wikipedians who are defending living people from false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment, then anonymous chanboard trolls will be free to fill Wikipedia articles about the issue with false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment! Brilliant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Did I mention RGW? And Bernstein probably should have suffered the same fate as you but he was blocked at the time anyway. That article needs breathing space. Masem has agreed to withdraw; Bernstein has not and won't even respond to challenges of what appear to be untruths in his statements. Someone there has honour and it isn't Bernstein. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
So ... it's personal to you? "probably should have suffered the same fate?" Understood, no axes on your end to grind, nossir. 72.198.221.196 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
the Orangemoody case. Quite a triumph, depressing as the whole thing is Oops. Misunderstood. So thanks for all the work you did on whatever case that was a couple years ago :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya[edit]

@Dennis Brown: Sorry to bother you, you can always pass my request to another admin if you are too busy. I have recently been tracking inaccuracies in the Eastern Europe articles (a Herculean task). I recently brought the problems with Yulia Tymoshenko to your attention and you acted swiftly. In the 'Murder, investigation and trial' section of the article Anna Politkovskaya, one can read "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin. In my opinion, this kind of conspiracy theory, sinister in a comical way, is damaging for the credibility of Wikipedia. I have tried to erase it, only to be promptly reverted. If you agree with me, please see what you can do. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that she was killed on Putin's birthday is emphasized by the source. Hell, it's in the title of the article. That Politkovskaya was assassinated is not exactly controversial. That the Russian government had something to do with it is also not a "conspiracy theory" but the view taken by a very significant (majority?) number of reliable sources.
User:Againstdisinformation (speaking of irony...) is hoping for some ignorance here to help him with the POV pushing. When journalists get killed in "normal" countries and somebody blames the government, yeah, a lot of times those are "conspiracy theories". But there's plenty of countries where government being involved in the murder of uncomfortable journalists is not "conspiracy" but unfortunately the way it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Volunteer Marek is one of a small grooup of Eastern Europeans who entertain this manichean view of Russia. I am not saying that political opponents can't be assassinated in some countries, but before making accusations you need proofs or at least very strong evidence. Here, what is your evidence? Since you have none, you just say, well it's obvious it was Putin, since it was his birthday. Rarely have I heard such a moronic argument.This is the kind of absurdity one would expect to read in the Daily Mirror, not in an encyclopaedia. Dennis, I would appreciate your view on the matter. Thank you. Againstdisinformation (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm familiar enough with Volunteer Marek. We sometimes disagree, but my observations have been that he acts in good faith. This doesn't mean he is correct here nor does it mean he is wrong, just that behavior isn't really on the table without substantiation. I would also note that he hasn't participated in this article or talk page, so his alleged biases aren't really at issue. As for the content itself, that is outside the realm of what admin do. If I entered that area, I would be doing so as an editor, not admin, and it is outside my area of expertise. Admin don't decide content, thankfully. What I suggest is continuing the discussion on the talk page, perhaps start a neutrally worded poll and find which way the consensus winds blow. I would ask VM to join in if he feels he has something to contribute. This is all part and parcel of WP:BRD. Too many admins (myself included at times) get involved too early in the discussion process and make a problem worse, so I think it best to stay out of the way of the people discussing for now. Dennis Brown - 11:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Humour or not?[edit]

I just happened to glance thru this page, and wanted to know your thought on this rant; as you were the blocking admin: User talk:Kingshowman#He is Risen. Seems kind of childlike to me.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I had already seen that. Book of Mark I think, but I haven't read the bible in a few decades. It would be easy to draw all kinds of conclusions from his posting that particular passage but I don't want to jump to conclusions. Childlike is one possibility, but there are others. A failed attempt at humor is another. I can think of several more. Once people start preaching from the pulpit (and in this case, quite literally), I tend to just pull back to the middle of the crowd and see what happens next. No need to feed the desire for attention. Dennis Brown - 16:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright. :). I'm just keeping an eye on the user for a while to ensure that there is no more battling around here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I love the smell of barbecue in the morning...even better than Napalm[edit]

If you don't win at least you have something to hang from your rear view mirror to make the car smell nice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Scratch and sniff lotto tickets? There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Futurama did a parody of the concept 10 years ago, ironic that once again life imitates art. Not much into gambling nowadays. Dennis Brown - 09:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better[edit]

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

More or less as I indicated at AN ...[edit]

Wikipedia justice wp.png The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
Sometimes having to wade through the arguments at ANI and elsewhere is honestly asking for more time and/or effort of someone than most people would really feel comfortable asking others to to. The ANI discussion you just commented on is one of those times. Thank you for having read through the whole damn thing, which I know full well is something only someone truly dedicated to the project and its goals would ever be likely to do. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks John. If I was feeling a bit better, I would have moved myself, but I'm under the weather and not up for a battle. No matter what is done, there exists a possibility of a fight afterwards. Normally, I'm up for it, just not this week. Dennis Brown - 00:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman[edit]

You indefinitely blocked Kingshowman. I'm curious what you do or don't do after indef blocking. (That user was active at Donald Trump. Isn't it logical that s/he might be mad as a result of the block? And use alternate ids at Talk:Donald Trump to carry on with name-calling, etc.? [1] If nothing is done re that, then I sincerely don't get it - what is the point of blocking at all? It's very confusing can you explain?) IHTS (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A perfect block of a first class stereotype of one who is WP:NOTHERE. (I wonder what IHTS is doing here?) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand, Kudpung. (I have no beef with the block, it probably was perfectly earned and executed. But there is illogic present over blocking, when there is no followup to what am supposing is easily anticipated user response - resorting to alternate names.) So I wonder what you are doing here? IHTS (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung, as long as you're here, why don't you do something useful, like go to Talk:Donald Trump and block the editor calling others racists, neo-nazis, etc., and remove those posts? (Instead of attempting to pick at me?) IHTS (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)