Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hey Dennis, I'll say this as politely as I can ... Why don't you just leave me alone, OK? (I've never initiated dialogue with you in any venue recently that I can remember; why don't you follow suit so there won't be any nasty exchanges between us any further? I'd like to say "goodbye" to you, wiki-forever. I really don't think you have a clue regarding real editor retention, or your own misgivings, but say everything to make yourself "look good".)<p> Take care and please call your numerous gang members (need I mention them?) off my ass, that you have successfully nominated at RfAs. Bottom line: you're part of the problem on WP, Dennis, fail to see or recognize it, in spite of your professed self-praising/gloating intentions. (When's the last time you didn't say "At my RfA, ..." as example why someone lacking qualifications s/b promoted?) Goodbye and good luck (but seriously, leave me alone, when it's been important, it's been yucky w/ you.) ] (]) 22:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey Dennis, I'll say this as politely as I can ... Why don't you just leave me alone, OK? (I've never initiated dialogue with you in any venue recently that I can remember; why don't you follow suit so there won't be any nasty exchanges between us any further? I'd like to say "goodbye" to you, wiki-forever. I really don't think you have a clue regarding real editor retention, or your own misgivings, but say everything to make yourself "look good".)<p> Take care and please call your numerous gang members (need I mention them?) off my ass, that you have successfully nominated at RfAs. Bottom line: you're part of the problem on WP, Dennis, fail to see or recognize it, in spite of your professed self-praising/gloating intentions. (When's the last time you didn't say "At my RfA, ..." as example why someone lacking qualifications s/b promoted?) Goodbye and good luck (but seriously, leave me alone, when it's been important, it's been yucky w/ you.) ] (]) 22:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*Believe it or don't, but I interjected there because I didn't want to see someone come in an throw a sanction on you for violating the iban. It was a very minor infraction but ''in my opinion'' it still was against the iban. So I said it was using the softest language I could use and just recommended it stay deleted and everyone go away. I completely believe you when you say you see it as an attack, but that is the problem: the rest of the world would not see my initial post as anything more than I say it is. Ask anyone you want off wiki. And I'm sorry, but you really are too verbose much of the time. I used to be the same way, I completely understand that, but it won't change until you recognize it. It isn't a character flaw, it is just an unfortunate thing for you, as people WON'T read all that. ] | ] | ] 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*Believe it or don't, but I interjected there because I didn't want to see someone come in an throw a sanction on you for violating the iban. It was a very minor infraction but ''in my opinion'' it still was against the iban. So I said it was using the softest language I could use and just recommended it stay deleted and everyone go away. I completely believe you when you say you see it as an attack, but that is the problem: the rest of the world would not see my initial post as anything more than I say it is. Ask anyone you want off wiki. And I'm sorry, but you really are too verbose much of the time. I used to be the same way, I completely understand that, but it won't change until you recognize it. It isn't a character flaw, it is just an unfortunate thing for you, as people WON'T read all that. ] | ] | ] 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
**Oh bullshit, Dennis. You didn't do me any favors, and stop stroking yourself with false praise. (Your characteristic attribute.) {{tq|a very minor infractin}} but you have fucking nothing to say whether or not Sjakkalle's threat of block if I restore is valid or off-base. (Hello. Content-devoid. There you are.) It wasn't against the bad, and you have have offered no reason why it is against WP:IBAN, I have read the article there very thoroughly. (Your "polemic" and "thought-police" shit is not registered in WP:IBAN, and just BS coming out your mouth according to your fantasies, hello.) I never called any comment you made at the AN an "attack" (did I?) -- but here you go off with your usual BS and accuse me of same. (You like making shit up, don't you!?) Your opinion about "what people will/won't read" is not any truth Dennis, you have no monopoly on truth, you think you do, and that is your ever-frustrating problem and why I can't have anything to do with you and don't want to read your shit to my attention any more. (It's too frustrating, and I'm bound to explode. Not good. ) ] (]) 22:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 11 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
WP:QUOTE
In reference to your statement above that you "don't agree with it, but community's opinion is all that matters and they have spoken by creating the policy", WP:QUOTE is not a policy, nor even a guideline. It is an "essay", which is Wikispeak for saying that it is someone or other's opinion, and they have decided to make a Misplaced Pages page stating that opinion. Some "essays" do reflect generally held consensus opinion, but many merely reflect the opinions of a small group of Misplaced Pages editors, and I see no reason whatever to think that this one has consensus behind it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking around, it seems to be widely respected, but I may look closer after some coffee. MOS issues are not my specialty, and I probably should have caught that. Not exactly batting 1000 here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe the immediate problem we have here is that an unregistered IP editor is using WP:QUOTE as a excuse for wholesale deletions to well over 250 articles - whilst having no intention to transfer those quotes to Wikiquote. This, in my opinion, smacks of sophisticated vandalism and is against the spirit of the community. As stated above, WP:QUOTE is not policy and some action is needed to stop what is basically vandalism. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree: removal of content without providing an alternative access route (by adding the quotes to Wikiquote and adding the linking template) is damage to the encyclopedia. I had a look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies to see if it had perhaps a list of sections for a general biog article, but there's nothing like that and no mention of Quotations sections. I looked at 3 biographical FAs, chosen from names I recognised as quotable people from the list of FAs, and none have a quotes section, all have a list to Wikiquote (Ann Frank, Ernest Hemingway, Maya Angelou), so that non-scientific sample supports the suggestion that our best articles don't have a "Quotes" section. But removal without providing alternative access is damage tending towards vandalism, yes. PamD09:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This probably needs someone with more MOS experience than I have, it really isn't my specialty at all and I never get into MOS issues. By the same token, WP:BRD is also just an essay but carries a lot of weight, I just don't know how much this quote essay has. I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism as it is inline with an essay that is at least considered by some to be valid. I'm guessing this would need a larger discussion, but not at ANI and instead an RFC, but I'm not sure where. Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) might be one idea. I suggest dropping the vandalism word at this stage, as to not be thought of poisoning the well. Ping me if you do, because I personally agree with you that quotes sections have value in many circumstances. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER09:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
After posting a request for comments on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) regarding this issue and taking in account comments there and on your Talk page and the unregistered IP's Talk page - it appears that the majority of contributors are against the actions of the IP and that the excuse that WP:QUOTE is policy has been dismissed. It is a essay only. Considering that these edits are still going on - is it not time for action? David J Johnson (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you might need to concisely summarize the issue, link the Pump discussion, and take it to ANI for a discussion. I think you will find more opinions there, but I don't think we can jump to "action" at this stage, and when there is split opinion on a behavior, you really need a consensus for how to deal with it, not the action of a sole admin, as technically, we act only on the authority of the community in "what the community would do" fashion, and it isn't completely clear, even now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate concerning WP:QUOTES and my question is related. I would very much like to have your advice on WP:NOT and the statement at Misplaced Pages:NOTGALLERY, "Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." I can’t imagine it means removing all pertinent and captioned photos from articles. Does it mean then that all pertinent and captioned photos are meant to be integrated within the body of the article and not in a stand-alone photo section? There are many galleries in various Wiki articles (often science related) that help illuminate the text. I would like to resolve an issue involving editor IP 64.4.93.100 who blanked a section of relevant photos from an article based on his interpretation of Misplaced Pages:NOTGALLERY. If that is indeed what the rules are, fine. But I would also imagine that reintegrating various appropriate photos within the body of the article (contextualizing) is allowed. Many thanks in advance if you can find the time to reply. --Jumbolino (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Galleries are fly traps, just like In popular culture sections. About the only valid use I can think of for a gallery is to show a few illustrative examples of an artist's work. EricCorbett20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And I love galleries in a wider variety of articles than perhaps Eric does, but not in articles where the reason is simply that we have lots of photos available. The difference here is that WP:NOTGALLERY is a policy, not an essay, so it has real teeth. This means, if you disagree with the application by someone, you need to use the article talk page, an RFC or the WP:DR system for interpretation, as it isn't a matter for an admin decide, but an issue for fellow editors to decide. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just think of our Sunbeam Tiger article. It would have been very easy to include a gallery in that, as so many other car articles do, but I'd have fought tooth and nail against it. EricCorbett20:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you are here, what do you think about Tri-Five? I used small galleries as I felt in this type of article, it applied...pushing the policy to the edge, I admit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
On a more serious note, the goal was to contrast the three years. Maybe a little much, but I don't think overwhelmingly so. Now that I've said that, Eric will probably take me to the woodshed over it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I really don't know what to say, except for "Aaagh! Please God, no!". It's only a three-year period, so would it not be possible to be a little more selective? EricCorbett21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I had someone tell me I should hand it my bit earlier, and if I'm going down, I'm dragging everyone with me in the most abusive way possible ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Eric, it would have been my first. You won't believe how much money I've transferred to various admins using Paypal over the years. Dennis, you're talking bollocks - I don't think you could be abusive if you tried ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That must be why you're broke then Sitush. You should do what I do, let the Devil take the hindmost and bollocks to the rest. EricCorbett22:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case Dennis the galleries actually serve the purpose of showing the different views of that specific model, rather than just hey we have a lot of pictures, let's have a gallery! Thinking back to fried sweet potato... --kelapstick21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(grammar question repeated from your talk, Eric, agree or disagree:) should it be on the background of my "alleged long history" or "allegedly long history" as an infobox warrior? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Extraordinary. I've lost count of the number of times I've been blocked, probably about fifteen times by now I'd guess. EricCorbett23:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't checked, but I think I've only been blocked once since abandoning the infamous Malleus's account. I wonder what's changed? EricCorbett23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if you filter out all the wheel warring and unblocks, you have six blocks since changing to your real name. So, to answer you question: nothing. Personally, I find you to be a bit mellower, more comfortable in your own skin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Six blocks in the past year must be a record even for me. And there I was thinking that I was all set up for a successful stab at WP:RFA; I'd have loved to have been the first candidate forbidden from taking part in any discussion. To be a little bit more serious though, it always felt a little bit childish to be posting under a pseudonym and perhaps that came through a bit, and maybe similarly comes out in others. EricCorbett00:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree. That is why I changed from Pharmboy to my real name back in 2008. I like that there is a degree of accountability when it is your real name at the end of each edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not very hard to remain unblocked, there are editors with 100,000s of edits and they had no block. Self imposed 1rr may stop you from edit warring and if it is about verbal offense, then "When angry count to ten before you speak. If very angry, count to one hundred." Just like Thomas Jefferson had said. It works ;-) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
When you're dealing with the sort of stuff I deal with and, like me, you don't have a self-imposed 1RR, it is probably a miracle. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned this on my own talk the other day, but if you've worked on an article to any decent quality that has high viewing figures (upwards of 1 million a year) it's not too hard to get into a situation where you revert four good faith but misguided edits by IPs that change parameters in the infobox, add trivia or change US - UK English (or vice verse) against consensus (etc) within a day, and suddenly you've violated WP:3RR and can be blocked. I see "considerable leeway is given to FAs", but the basic principle filters down to all articles beyond totally unrepairable stuff. In the past (though I have dialled it back a bit recently, or at least tried to) I have sounded off to other editors not because I want to change their mind (it never happens) but because I'm hoping other editors will latch onto my views and agree with them over the other party. It's dead easy to misinterpret text - only the other day I thought someone was having a go at Eric on his talk, when they weren't at all. Ritchie33311:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It also depends on the admin. I tend to give great leeway on reverts with FA articles that unknown, new or IP editors who are adding questionable material, but not every admin has the same threshold. I think a few blindly block at 4RR without regard to the situation, as if that is the magic number that can't be broken, ie: the bright line. Blocking is often the least effective way to deal with edit warring. Sure, it makes the problem go away for 31, 48 or 72 hours, but it really doesn't make the problem go away. Protection is almost always better. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
From my experience, admins tend to be reluctant to semi-protect purely due to quality reasons. You need to have a solid case of immediate and ongoing disruption or vandalism if reports at WP:RPP are a typical sample. Indeed, our protection policy states or at least implies that protection is totally against Misplaced Pages's ethos of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (as if blocking somehow wasn't!) Ritchie33315:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For semi-protection, yes, but I will full protect at the drop of a hat when I see edit warring, to keep from having to block someone. I can always unprotect 3 hours later if they come to an agreement, but a block log is forever. The problem with blocking is that you are also favoring one side of a disagreement, even if you don't mean to. Sometimes, this makes sense if one person if fighting against a clear consensus, but not when two people are fighting over an info box and there isn't a very obvious consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that's okay. The only bit that might backfire if you have to be away, and the protection is too long, which particularly on BLPs can annoy editors, though that's only a minor disadvantage. The trouble with something like an infobox war is I would probably think most readers and editors don't care about that, and protection would disadvantage them if they wanted to add actual content or fix a source. If it was just two editors against each other, I'd probably be more inclined to block the pair of them. If it was a huge flame-war with people pitching battle-lines at each other, protection would be better. Ritchie33317:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Almost every time I protect, I always add "an admin is free to modify or remove without consulting me first", just like the banners I have on my user AND talk page. :) I would never block both of them. Blocks are funny....the threat of a block is a much more powerful tool than the block itself, as people don't want that on their block log. The problem is, the more you block someone, the less it bothers them, until it becomes a badge of honor (for some, not all). So the more you block, the weaker that tool becomes, until it is completely useless outside of an indef block and ban. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER18:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A very good point that many seem to miss. Taking myself as an example, anyone who thinks that my behaviour can by conditioned by yet another block is living in cloud-cuckoo land. Yet banning me indefinitely if I should cross the 3RR threshold inappropriately seems like too Draconian a punishment. I don't know what the answer is, but blocking isn't it. EricCorbett14:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I think know the answer Eric Corbett...if I block you, I empower you and embolden you. If I full protect the page, I frustrate the hell out of you, but it forces you to discuss the changes with the other editor and find a compromise. Trust me, full protection is a much better tool for getting someone to cooperate than blocking is, to get them to temporarily change their behavior. I imagine that in some ways, you and the editor are both pissed at the admin that protected, so you have a common "enemy", so to speak. Either way, you are in the same boat, so you better learn to row together if you want to stop going in circles. It also gets others who are editing different areas to join your discussion, (perhaps irritated at you both because you caused it to get protected), but still willing to join in a consensus to get it over with. Protection isn't a cure all, but it is effective when dealing with otherwise rational editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably well known that there are some editors, such as Eric, who have been blocked for superficial or trivial reasons (or at least that's what I've observed) so often that if anyone blocked him again, there'd be an insanely long thread on ANI while people argue about the block, Eric's behaviour, the decline of Misplaced Pages, "all admins are nazis" etc etc ... while the actual issue on the article remains unresolved, or at best attended to as a footnote to the dramamongering. Ritchie33314:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the way that protection scenario comes across to me is like the time the entire school got frogmarched into the boy's toilets because one idiot had decided it would be funny to clog up one with mud and flush one repeatedly to see what happened .... one person's misbehaviour ruins it for everyone. That just doesn't seem fair. Having said that, it might not be too bad if it's an out of the way article that doesn't get many edits and is just seeing a blazing row tonight.
Ideally, I'd hope that the "block the pair of them" scenario would only arise after I had already tried to resolve their dispute on talk and suggested a consensus (similar to this), seen them ignore it and then write something akin to "Okay, that's enough. You need to come to talk right now, you have both broken 3RR (+link to policies), I'll have no choice but to block whoever reverts without discussing here per that". For most people, I'd assume a straight "Seriously, stop it now or I'll have no choice" would work. When I've moderated forums in the past, that, combined with their understanding that I can throw them off, is usually enough to get the average person to calm down.
Where I think blocks and bans fall down is with the likes of Russavia, who knows the rules inside out and understands full well he can sock, sock and sock again, he'll just get indeffed, and start all over, allowing him to carrying on editing and give admins lots of dull and annoying work to stop him. He knows he can game the system and is probably laughing his head off at admins fumbling around trying to checkuser and block the next sock. Ritchie33319:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I've moderated forums as well, and just say that the accountability here is way, way higher, as is the drama if you goof up. Its a much bigger place, bigger than all except a few other websites. Russavia proves that blocks aren't "the answer", and that is where many people make mistakes. Blocks are tools, nothing more. If used properly, they can solve some problems, but just as easy, they can create new ones or make the situation worse. Tools are easy things to understand, human nature is not so easy to understand. That is why I try to talk before I block in most circumstances except the most obvious. Of course, you can't SEE the person you are talking to, which makes it very difficult to second guess them. I will just say that my attitude about blocks and such changed radically in first year of having the bit and is still evolving. Your perspective changes once you actually have the tools in your hand, and the knowledge that every time you use them, someone can call you out to explain your actions, and you MUST comply with that request. It's hard to explain the difference, you have to just experience it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Another thing I've observed is that users who have been around the block a few times know typical ways of getting blocked, and either avoid them or face them head on knowing they'll talk their way round it. New users, however, have a harder time of understanding "the rules", and despite requests to read WP:GAB, I think often don't really understand why hitting "undo" four times in one day on creating an article about their pet cat three times in quick succession is a problem. Username soft blocks are particularly problematic - we just want somebody to change their login name but it does come across as "you have broken the rules - game over". I think sometimes we go in a bit heavy-handed on blocking. Not everyone speaks English as a native language, and not everyone's got the gift for diplomacy and persuasion to extract themselves from the situation. Ritchie33314:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Usernames in particular are a problem. We have a pretty good template, but it is still ominous and overly verbose, thus probably not read often. Not sure how to address that without waiting to block and taking up a tremendous amount of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Normally, I'm quick to grant "userfication" of previously deleted article, but I have a lot of reservations here. First, you are the "owner" or founder of the subject of the article (not a biggie by itself), and then the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming itself was slog full of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I'm more inclined to request a CU investigate the IPs of all the users and help link up who was really using multiple accounts, which would result in those editors getting blocked. And earlier today I had to delete the article after another user recreated it just after it as deleted at AFD. (friend? coworker?) I'm debating whether it needs to be salted so that no editor may ever create it without going through an admin first. I know several admin watch my talk page (and I watch theirs) and if they think it is a good idea, I won't stand in the way. They are invited to opine about it here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That AfD was indeed a mess, and I do believe there was a heavy case of sock-puppeting, but I'm going to assume good faith and assume it was a just a well-meaning editor or two that is inexperienced with Wiki etiquette. I've been on Misplaced Pages a long time, I have not shown interest in creating an article about myself for all these years, and I still don't want an article about myself on here. There just seems to a be a small contingency of well-meaning editors, that are a bit too giddy to put up an article. Before it was re-posted I was hoping to correct issues with the article, which are numerous, and to contact fellow experienced editors to help with correcting the article. Which is why I was requesting the userfication, I'll put a notice on top to not repost it to a main article until it is accepted by experienced editors. If the article is reposted again, I would highly recommend salting, so that way the article is only on the mainspace when its ready. Smile Lee (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to add, that it was Lankiveil that closed the AFD and it is customary to either ask the closing admin or have them as part of the discussion when considering userfying articles. I see you have already contact them, and came here after they indicated a reluctance. Shopping around for a different opinion might be seen as WP:ADMINSHOPing, and is looked down upon. You should have said here that you already notified him and he declined, which looks like deception through omission. Your only alternative would be WP:REFUND (where you need to ask and notify that two admin have already refused). You would also need to notify both Lankiveil and myself if you go there, as we were the admin that refused to restore outright. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER15:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Lankiveil wasn't reluctant to userfy the article. I had been requesting Lankiveil's help to fix the article, whom just informed me today, that they have been busy and hadn't been able review the userfied article I had. That's fine, they can take as long as they need to. The thing I'm asking to get userfied, is the most recent revision of the article, theone that BeachParadise made, which you deleted from the mainspace. I liked some of the tweaks BeachParadise made, which is why I marked it as reviewed. Though it did not belong in the mainspace yet, and I am fine with your decision to delete it. I am requesting that current revision on my userspace, so that way I and a few other editors can continue to work on it. Again, I'm going to add a notice to inform users not to move it to the mainspace, so that way this doesn't happen again. Smile Lee (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, sorry if you already know this. But I came across a sock of CatCreek today, User: Return of the creek. The user n question was blocked already, but perhaps the account/userpage must be tagged as a sock? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is one of those I will usually avoid tagging simply because it is obvious, and some of these socks LIKE having their socks tagged as a badge of honor, over how many times they have vandalized, etc. We generally don't in these limited accounts due to the wisdom in WP:DENY. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Any chance you might consider closing this? It was part of the whole Carriearchdale thing. The reason I am asking is although it has been open only 6 days, It was initiated in bad faith, and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus. The only delete was by Carrie, the nominator, and the rest seems pretty evenly split between keep and merge to her husband's article. It has also been edited for clarity 3 times and the whole mess is just that, a mess. Perhaps you could close it as no consensus and get it over for the greater good? John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Somebody just created an article Palam Kalyanasundaram. I had this on my watchlist as a redlink; I believe that's because it was deleted several times before, and I was suspicious that somebody might try to recreate it. But it was some time ago so I can't remember details. Obviously I don't have access to past deletion information; can you check on it? No rush. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
On a whim, I took off for the NC/SC beach for at least a few days with only the smartphone. Don't expect to see me for a bit. Need an adventure so hopped in the car and here I am. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they're back to redirecting it to the generic ham article, if you want to keep your eyes back on the most ridiculous rd war we have to deal with. Nate • (chatter)22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Arb case comment
Appreciate your comment, Dennis, as always.
At this stage I wasn't commenting on what the community should do, rather what I'd expect the body considering the case to do - hence my comparison to Magistrates (maybe a Brit thing).
Now, as to whether it should have been taken there - well, obviously not - running across busy Motorways is always ill advised.
For some personalities it takes the glare of the oncoming headlights to realise that, though. Begoon16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I just know that a couple of us are trying to figure out how to deal with this but can't do anything until it is finally dismissed. I was using the comment as a little hint that one more Arb needs to decline so we CAN take care of the problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, cool. Forgive me if, on this occasion, I think a few more blaring horns, or even a very near miss/glancing blow from the oncoming traffic might help more in circumstances like this. It's not like this particular jaywalking problem is new. But I'll have no more to do with it. I've said enough. Begoon16:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against you, just trying to get this train wreck over with. This has been going on longer than it appears. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated. I know how long it's been going on, and where. I also know it was ignored. Anyway, I'm out now - thanks for your comments - as always I know you put yourself in difficult positions, and I know you do it for the best of reasons. You have my respect. Begoon16:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Continued attacks on Group of 88 edits
I feel the spirit of your close on the ANI on the Duke of 88 issue was violated by another such discussion being opened so soon after the first was closed. It is even more frustrating that I have attempted to show a willingness to alter my actions, removed large chunks of what I said from the CfD, but still am under attack. Much of the attack seems to be rehashing the issues from the CfD, and trying to make it so I could not participate in a similar CfD. I guess at some level panicking about this is making it worse, but the vitriol with which the attack has been carried out on me, combined with the almost unanimous support for some sort of ban, has me down right scared.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You are the one who initiated the vitriol, Johnpacklambert, as a simple reading of your now redacted comments at CfD shows. I have taken a close look at Group of 88 and discovered that the core article (before I began a cleanup) mischaracterized the original newspaper ad, relies heavily on polemical ultraconservative attack pieces, and cherry-picked statements in sources to portray the professors in the worst possible light. This whole affair is a BLP disaster. CullenLet's discuss it08:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For god's sake, give me a link next time, I had to look everything up before I've had a single coffee. You guys realize I live near Duke, right? No news cast here uses the phrase "Group of 88" without explaining what it means first, and seldom uses it at all. Reading through your struck comments, John, I think your judgement is compromised. I'm not judging you as a person, I think your heart was in the right place, but when you say things like "These enemies of due process need continued exposure for their racism." as the lead rationale for keeping a category, then neutrality has taken a back seat to passion. The First law of holes says "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." and I think this applies here. Regardless, I will take a look at the ANI, although since I was pinged, please note I reserve the right to opine either way on the issue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER12:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Being Farmer Brown, I'm more "cultured like buttermilk" than anything ;) I do have the good taste to get my tobacco (snus) direct from Sweden, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER18:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis! Question for you, since I don't have much experience with speedy deletion: Is G-11 appropriate for a user talk page? Specifically, is this user page a candidate for G-11? This person has been expressing a desire to "create their personal biography" at Misplaced Pages, but their first attempt at doing so on their talk page was speedied as copyvio. I came across them on someone else's talk page where they were asking for advice; I and others have warned them against promotion and copyvio. The new version strikes me as purely promotional, but I don't know if that's inappropriate for a user page; after all, we ARE allowed to talk about ourselves there. How much promotion is allowed on user pages, and are they subject to G-11? Thanks for any advice. (Not asking you to delete it yourself; just wondering if I should tag it.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than CSD#G11, I tend to think MfD. There aren't any links to external websites, so it is more of a resume/webhost than blatant advertising and promotion. If here were a real contributor that worked on a bunch of articles, I wouldn't even bother as we are pretty tolerant of person bios for actual contributors, but it seems the only reason he is here is to create a "profile", like on facebook/linkedin/etc. Lots of people make that mistake, don't understand that Misplaced Pages (theoretically) isn't a social networking site. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This could (but it is a bit of a stretch) be nominated under the recently created U5, although it would be prudent to wait a little while to see if he has any interest in contributing to anything other than his personal biogrpahy. --kelapstick15:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
While it says that it excludes resume-like pages, this does seem like an attempt to create an article without creating an article. U5 doesn't have a time frame, however, I agree that we shouldn't CSD so hastily for a new user's userpage.--kelapstick15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule, when you have to ask so many questions, and add "if", "maybe" etc....MfD is the answer ;) We aren't in a god awful rush and MfD is fast enough. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well Put Dennis, I do notice that U5 seems to be on a lot of articles that it may not be suitable for (new users, etc.), and I can see it as a highly misused (unintentionally) criterion. Having said that, CSDH does not support it yet, unfortunately. --kelapstick15:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the deal with this template Template:Db-spamuser ? I saw it used at this userpage User:Psrathore145. It seems to describe exactly the situation I was asking about: a promotional user page, by a user whose name implies affiliation with the thing being promoted. Again, I'm not suggesting it should be used here, more trying to educate myself on these issues. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I dunno. I don't think I've used that one before. I don't do a lot of CSDs anyway (long story, starts with my RFA, I'll save it for a rainy day). I've had several of my AFDs turn into CSDs from my caution. I tend to take the long way on deletions, knowing they will get deleted eventually and we aren't in a hurry. I really save CSD for the really bad stuff, vandalism, blatant hoaxes or negative BLP stuff, or "Our band formed two weeks ago but we are on the way up!!!" type articles, which are plenty enough. I'm not sure if I've every CSD'ed a user page, although I know I've MfDed a great many. To me, it boils down to putting more eyes on it. If they want to CSD my MfD, that is fine with me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL, I just found out why his earlier page was deleted: it was a copy of the webpage Vote For Gary - the man is running for office! The new version is NOT a copy of his "vote for me" page - it's a promotional but straightforward bio and does not even mention his political ambitions - so I think may be OK, at least for a while. But if he adds anything politically promotional I will probably tag it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
For your help with the webhost that turned out not to be an open proxy! I got distracted by RL and other on-Wiki issues. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I just kept monitoring and figured RL got in the way, did a little research and made the block. I have a couple of neat tools for working on proxies (some that need updating) so I never mind putting them to work. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER09:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dennis. Our paths haven't crossed before, so I hope this finds you well and content. On ANI you advised to file at SPI, but I read your follow-up here as "don't go hunting for that, eat wha't on the table." Let me know if I got that part right. Cheers. Sam20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are two messages. The point being that WP:SPI is really the only place to deal with complex sockpuppet issues. We don't "vote" support/oppose for sockpuppetry on ANI, it is an investigation not a community decision. And second, I've got over 1200 SPI blocks and over a year clerking at SPI, so familiarity told me that this was a dead issue. It is way too stale to get action, no admin would take action, AND if there was a real problem with speedy tags, all this talk of socking was only distracting from the real problem. I had not heard that particular expression, but I guess it does apply. Hunting for a new "crime" was pointless as there was no actionable "crime" in the sock section. I almost archived it as a distraction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
IP address Vandalism.
Hello Dennis Brown!
I was just thinking; while maybe reverting 78.150.147.25's content removal was a bit overboard, but shouldn't these edits, the continuous removal of random titles : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
be considered as vandalism?
Sorry if I caused any trouble earlier, but removing content with no explanation looks like vandalism to me, and some editors seem to agree.
Hello again; I was just wondering... Would this incident stain my record as an editor? If I applied for, let's say, reviewer rights, would this be a great contributing "no" factor? Thanks in advance! :) Staglit (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, you were mistaken, but you didn't get dickish about it, and I don't think your report led to the blocking anyway. We all make mistakes. I certainly do, regularly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For your tireless contributions to ANI
The Working Man's Barnstar
After doing some work on many of the other noticeboards, some of which were a ghost town, I came to ANI to find that every issue had been resolved, closed in an orderly fashion, much to the credit of Mr. Brown. It is such a rare sight to see everything look so orderly, and a tireless barnstar is definitely warranted for being on the ball in one of Misplaced Pages's less desirable work-loads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs)
It is funny that I sometimes get negative feedback (mainly offwiki it seems) about being the most active person at ANI, but someone has to do it. At the same time, I try to be the last to block, so hopefully some good comes of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER09:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, the truth is I'm a little tired. I explained to the user in his discussion but it was useless. The information being added to part of having references is irrelevant. For example in section "Mexico broadcast" remove that information by the lack of references. We consult with other users on IRC and was told that such information was irrelevant and has no references. The user insists on adding WeirdPsycopath crosses in the characters as if the actors had died in real life. Information "Mexico broadcast" was removed several items for the same and there was even a user who is annoyed by this, but the problem was solved. And the truth is that the user takes a month to do the same and give explanations srive me anything because they do not care. Other users Users accepted the changes and this person simply does not want to, I hope you can understand.--Damián(talk)22:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I also want to add that when the user can no longer be reversed to your account using different ips:
Also if you want you can look at my editing and him, and you will realize what I mean. I will explain in their discussion and the user does not seem to mind.--Damián(talk)22:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I know he has been a pain, although I had not seen the IP edits. I'm just trying to give him the chance to adjust, just asking you use proper summaries and try a little as well. I'm not complaining about you, just trying to give him every chance before I indef block him. I think part of it is just being so new and not understanding what Misplaced Pages is about. If not, don't worry, I have my eye out and I'm won't hesitate to block him if he gets rude again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyway thanks for the help, but the user just be blocked, sincerely try to explain the best way but I see that there was no remedy.--Damián(talk)00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And thank you for trying User:Damián80, that is all I could ask. He seems to speak English tan mal como yo hablo español, which is why I don't edit es.wikipedia.org and he probably shouldn't edit en.wikipedia.org. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
LTA IP?
Hi Dennis. I closed this ANI thread we both commented on, then put two and two together and realised that the IP is probably the same one that's edit warred with people who disagree with him all over the place, culminating in an edit-war on Lamest Edit Wars (of all places) here and here and who knows full well he can just wait for his IP to recycle and carry on. Is this a possible entry for WP:LTA? Ritchie33314:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure. Normally, I leave it for CUs to decide that (who can look at user agents and the like, things you and I can't see), but you need a pretty good list of IPs and offenses to really justify a LTA, and my guess is, typically spanning a year or at least most of one. That is what puts the LT into LTA. It still bothers me that there was a lot of unnecessary thumping of the IP when he wasn't causing problems. That is a good way to create a LTA problem, and we do it all too often here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I can probably pull together a large list of IPs if required, going back at least 18 months. The warring over WP:LAME was just the icing on the cake. Always the same sort of theme, removing text similar to "best known for" from a lede (not itself problematic) and then aggressively edit warring over it. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/200.120.158.78/Archive @JamesBWatson: seems to have been the last admin to handle this. Ritchie33310:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as CUs are concerned, Ponyo has been active lately, but it is really helpful to have at least one involved in the event some ranges need connecting, etc. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER12:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
COI edits on Dean Del Mastro
Hi Dennis. I hope you don't mind a random question from a random editor. While patrolling recent changes, I reverted some edits on Dean Del Mastro, a Canadian MP who has been embroiled in some kind of political scandal. The IP was registered to the Canadian House of Commons so this could be a smear tactic by his opponents. What I didn't anticipate was how far this would go. A newspaper in Montreal picked up the story , and named both me and IP that made the edits on the MP's biography. What I want to know is, did I handle the situation correctly, and what should we do if more edits of this nature are made to Del Mastro's page? Semi-protection maybe? Oh, and while I was writing this message, a registered user made this edit . Not sure if I should revert, I'm approaching 3RR. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Because it is a BLP and getting too much attention (and it is very difficult to block a governmental IP address without causing a scandal), I've simply semi-protected the article for 3 months, so no IP or new account can edit it. Edits like are snippy little sarcastic things that I consider vandalism, thus immune to 3RR anyway. As for being named in the paper, I've had it happen, and had my name dragged across other websites in both negative and positive fashion. All I can see is I still get up at 6:30, love bacon and beer, and nothing has changed. In a week, no one will care. Don't let it affect what you do as an editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ponyo and Ohnoitsjamie. Anytime someone else gets caught up in an autoblock after a CU confirms a pair of socks, I definitely want a CU to make the call. Usually innocent, but admins don't have the bits to know for sure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER19:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Protection
What does "you aren't an admin" mean? I thought anyone could request protection, no? 21:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but that little tag you put on there isn't requesting protection, filing at WP:RFPP is. That was the pip we put on it after we DO protect it, so people can see that it is protected, its just a little lock image. Normally, only admin put that on the page, or others if the admin messes up and forgets, which does happen. I've been looking at it for protection, but I'm not inclined to. I will continue to keep an eye out for it. I think the IPs are very conservative, you are much less so, you should use the talk page. Remember, that article isn't about the incident, just the hardware. At this stage, it would be perfectly fine if the article said ZERO about the incident as nothing is chiseled in stone. We are an encyclopedia, being up to the minute isn't one of the goals, being fair and accurate is, which is hard to do with so much changing right now. If you are going to say something, it needs to be general and very, very well sourced, and leave the details to the main article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I see now. Not sure why the tag is available in the menu to non-admins then (that's a bit confusing); but clearly it was the wrong tag. Disagree about the appropriateness of the content. It's all fully sourced and appropriate, and in keeping with the other items along with it it the section. It shouldn't get any bigger though. — Aldaron • T/C22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at it, that last sentence needs to go (belongs in the MH17 article); removing. — Aldaron • T/C22:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not one to micromanage, I just try to help find middle ground solutions and mediate, which is what I do most of the time. This is one crazy event, and so much is getting reported by sources, then they changed and retract or add....best to err on the safe side until we really figure it out, in my opinion. Sad day for a lot of people. Reading on the talk page, I do think you have the right ideas working, which is why I didn't want to protect and lock it out. Sometimes you have to push and shove a little to get things done, that is not so unusual. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I request that the aforementioned article is deleted, because that does not exist and telenovela is a hoax article, check all references and has the article are false, some are not. The Afd not truly a must see, because there is no soap opera.--Damián(talk)00:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to dig up right now, but just send the article to AFD and list the actor in the same AFD. It can get speedy deleted from there and that gives enough time to research by many eyes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't know how to deal with this guy - I've wasted a lot of time on him already and honestly I think he's wasting his time and everyone else's. We aren't going to change our copyright policy for him. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Much of it seems ultimately to be based on promoting an apparently currently non-notable group. It may well become notable, and maybe even large, maybe very soon. Until then, though, ... John Carter (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've left a message on Jim's tp, without prejudice to Boing's email which I was not privy to (no reason why I should have been). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It is interesting that the first 'odd' stuff about Siduri was about a "Church of Siduri", see the first post at Talk:Siduri and these two now reverted edits., We also had an article for a short time called the Church of Siduri, now a redirect to Siduri after my AfD. And an attempt to use a self-published book by one Peter Dyr. Lots of 'interesting' interest in Siduri. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not really all that complicated. 10 mins of web search seems to demonstrate that he is proselytizing for his movement under the guise of wanting help Misplaced Pages. All in GF of course, but WP is not the place to do it. Most of the movement seems to be about promoting a certain book and other Siduri merchandise on a 'kind of' online store. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh sure, but I was searching on "siduri project" and "church of siduri". What we can find is where he says ". I also run SidurisAdvice.com," SidurisAdvice.com hosts a pdf of Peter Dyr's book & Dyr seems to be behind the Church of Siduri. Both the church site and sidurisadvice.com sell the same products (eg a clock, a mug, etc). Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Dennis - I wouldn't say for a moment that I am brighter than most (but thanks for the compliment), it's just that I do possibly have rare flashes where I might appear more lucid than usual. In fact every time I go to a meet up or Wikimania, I am actually staggerd by the number of people who have far more clue than I do, and some of them are are only a quarter of my age :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
In my mind, there are several different types of "smart". You are obviously very educated and have good clue. (I see clue as different than "common sense") I'm a horse of a different feather, barely finished high school, an autodidact addicted to learning. The road of life has been long and bumpy, giving me a fair ration of common sense and more than a few scars. Sometimes at Misplaced Pages, I'm amazed at how many people have exceptional book knowledge yet lack common sense. It reminds me of the short essay I recently wrote, named after my alter ego WP:Farmer Brown. If you haven't read it, you should, it is the kind of thing you would appreciate, Kudpung, and describes the difference between book smarts and "street" smarts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER10:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You two are in the rare club of Wikipedians I've actually conversed with outside of enwp. Too bad we all live multiple time zones from each other. I have shared some homemade barbecue with Berean Hunter more than once, and had a really nice meal with Dank and his partner just a couple of weeks ago. It would be nice to break some bread with you two as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER10:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Another two guys I would very much like to meet - c'mon guys, get your tickets booked, Wikimania is only a few days away - (and for me 10,000 miles but I'll be there). Wouldn't miss it for the world even if it leaves me skint for a couple of months afterwards... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. While I agree with your decision and reasoning to block this IP, I do believe they have a valid complaint. The diffs explicitly show that the IP made simple grammar fixes that improved the article but was reverted just because they made the edit. I've dug a little further, and saw some incivility on the IP's part, but the fact remains that the other user walked away with less than a slap on the wrist while the IP was blocked. I'd appreciate it if you could at least give User:AlanS a warning about such behavior? Thanks in advance~ ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the IP is a long term block evader and not every one of their edits are to improve the encyclopedia. Reverting a block evader is supported under WP:RBI, although it isn't mandatory and I think it is probably done more than it needs to be. This IP has a trail of trolling and edit warring behind them. If you go back far enough, you see the IP was blocked for harassment and edit warring. Honestly, it is difficult to feel sorry for them. I'm aware of Alan, by the way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER09:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
No-one was asking you to feel sorry for anyone. They were just asking you to stop people being relentlessly attacked and harassed for making edits like this one.
Every single edit I've ever made to the encyclopaedia, since the first one I made in early 2004, has been intended to improve it. I'd love to see you find one edit that you think wasn't. For many years I never had a single problem, not a single complaint, not a single revert of my work. Around 2009 this began to change, people began reverting for no reason, leaving snotty messages, mostly using "AWB" and "TW" to do so. Around 2011 it got significantly worse, and these days you can't edit for more than a couple of days without someone reverting for no reason, and then everyone else who happens to pass by piling on with attacks, false claims, article protections, blocks, etc etc. I'm sure you must find it hilarious to be part of this appalling behaviour. I imagine you chuckled like anything while blocking with the false claim of block evasion. I bet you giggled for hours after you acted to prevent my complaint being heard. I bet you even thought it was pretty funny to falsely insinuate that the reversion of my edit to wind wave was fine because of block evasion, while knowing full well that there was no block evasion of any sort. Well, as I've said before, you won't win. You can't win. I am immensely patient, I can get new IPs very easily, and my improvements will be restored in due course. Perhaps in time you'll realise the absurdity of what you're taking part in.
"Giggled"? Either you don't know me, or you're a fool. If you ever decide to drop the hyperbole and the childish "look at me, I'm a victim" act and instead ask for a proper review without evading blocks, I will be glad to listen, but until then, I have better things to do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
See Eric, I am no less grumpy. I just work really hard to keep my threshold high. I've spent half the day visiting in the ICU and the other half consoling his wife (he will probably pull through), and both are more family than parents-in-law. Real life has a way of reminding you how utterly inconsequential some "problems" here really are. Fortunately, I haven't lost my sense of humor in all this, however, my bullshit threshold is very low. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER19:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
theredpeonofdoom
With reference to .this You have mentioned TheRedPenOfDoom is blunt but a very knowledgeable and capable editor. If he is removing sections, odds are very good that policy is on his side when removing it. I agree with you that he has good knowledge about Wiki rules and policies. But His English is not up to the mark . His choice of words and phrases is not good at all--Enterths300000 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to look at TheRedPenOfDoom's edits again and make sure you aren't mistaking someone else's edits for him. His grasp of proper English syntax and grammar far exceeds my meager skills. If you think he is making a mistake, you need to provide the diff and exact reason you think the grammar is incorrect, and do so on his talk page. He tends to cut more than add, maybe he made a mistake in grammar due to a technical mistake, but his skills and understanding of the English language are much better than average. I've never faulted his English, just his threshold before achieving the state of grumpiness ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis, closing the topic was the right thing to do, but your statement is inaccurate. Neither editor has edited since July 14.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, don't know why I read today's date as the 15th. Fixed, thank you. I probably shouldn't even be here, been a rough day. Might just go drink a beer and play my new video game Goat Simulator, which is very good therapy. You are an immortal goat with special powers and the entire theme of the game is to destroy everything (I'm not making this up). Stupid and pointless, like ANI, but more fun. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
To quote the giant computer WOPR in the movie WarGames..."the only winning move is not to play." so I will take that advice to heart, but nixing the beer. Right now, I have my Fred Flintstone collectible coffee mug half full of "apple pie" flavored moonshine (again, not kidding) and I hear a goat calling out to me. See you guys tomorrow.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER21:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Really? Never that bad? Really? Anyway, he is on the verge of revoking (and certainly by the letter of the law crossed it), but sometimes letting someone vent for one post can be a good thing (well not a bad thing). --kelapstick19:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I was doing just that and typing it out as you wrote. I didn't extend the block, so we will see what happens in a week. Really, I took away talk page access for his own good, to give him a chance in a week to come back without digging that hole even deeper. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER19:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉19:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Totally unfit, I have 12 letters into Arb and two to Jimbo right now ;) I will take a look at it later. I think "fit" is a bit harsh, I was concerned about readiness is all. I will save any further comment for that page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER19:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the time you take for this. Unrelated note: I am thinking of updating the quote on my userpage, and God knows I have a soft spot for giant dicks (emphasis not mine). ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"Just being honest"?! (Here's honest.)
Hey Dennis, I'll say this as politely as I can ... Why don't you just leave me alone, OK? (I've never initiated dialogue with you in any venue recently that I can remember; why don't you follow suit so there won't be any nasty exchanges between us any further? I'd like to say "goodbye" to you, wiki-forever. I really don't think you have a clue regarding real editor retention, or your own misgivings, but say everything to make yourself "look good".)
Take care and please call your numerous gang members (need I mention them?) off my ass, that you have successfully nominated at RfAs. Bottom line: you're part of the problem on WP, Dennis, fail to see or recognize it, in spite of your professed self-praising/gloating intentions. (When's the last time you didn't say "At my RfA, ..." as example why someone lacking qualifications s/b promoted?) Goodbye and good luck (but seriously, leave me alone, when it's been important, it's been yucky w/ you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Believe it or don't, but I interjected there because I didn't want to see someone come in an throw a sanction on you for violating the iban. It was a very minor infraction but in my opinion it still was against the iban. So I said it was using the softest language I could use and just recommended it stay deleted and everyone go away. I completely believe you when you say you see it as an attack, but that is the problem: the rest of the world would not see my initial post as anything more than I say it is. Ask anyone you want off wiki. And I'm sorry, but you really are too verbose much of the time. I used to be the same way, I completely understand that, but it won't change until you recognize it. It isn't a character flaw, it is just an unfortunate thing for you, as people WON'T read all that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh bullshit, Dennis. You didn't do me any favors, and stop stroking yourself with false praise. (Your characteristic attribute.) a very minor infractin but you have fucking nothing to say whether or not Sjakkalle's threat of block if I restore is valid or off-base. (Hello. Content-devoid. There you are.) It wasn't against the bad, and you have have offered no reason why it is against WP:IBAN, I have read the article there very thoroughly. (Your "polemic" and "thought-police" shit is not registered in WP:IBAN, and just BS coming out your mouth according to your fantasies, hello.) I never called any comment you made at the AN an "attack" (did I?) -- but here you go off with your usual BS and accuse me of same. (You like making shit up, don't you!?) Your opinion about "what people will/won't read" is not any truth Dennis, you have no monopoly on truth, you think you do, and that is your ever-frustrating problem and why I can't have anything to do with you and don't want to read your shit to my attention any more. (It's too frustrating, and I'm bound to explode. Not good. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
