Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NadirAli (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 28 June 2014 (→Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My barnstars

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Holy...

...shit! I've participated in 3569 AfDs! No wonder I'm such an asshole. Or, really, the other way around: since I'm an asshole, I must have sought out the worst possible environment. There's a lot of green in the matrix, so I'm not all bad. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the latter doc. Wow. I've only participated in 299. I should probably be desysoped. :) --kelapstick 03:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've been in around 1400-1500, almost all before becoming an admin. I would imagine the average admin with 40k edits might have 300 is all. Guys like me and Drmies like AFD because you get to call people out and passive aggressively call them idiots, and it is expected.  ;) Like Drmies, the majority of my incivility has been at AFD. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have the occasional "fuck off" in an edit summary, I'm sad to say. But man it is such a wonderfully appropriate expression sometimes. I'm going to run through AfD and vote with the rest to sweeten my stats a little bit. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I expect my desysop to be in the mail tomorrow: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lauren Scruggs. I have to admit, though, that the closing admin has a knack for writing. Jimbo Wales should put them on payroll. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think I've told someone to fuck off in those words, but more than once I have politely let someone know they are an idiot for starting a process or voting a certain way. I'm particularly harsh on admin who do silly things, like start a discussion on a move/rename/content when it has already been defeated 3x in 6 weeks. I just can't pretend to assume good faith at that point. Either they are either idiots or they don't care about consensus and just want to shake the magic 8 ball again. I've never been mean for someone simply disagreeing, no matter how poor their logic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I thought you already were on the payroll Doc. I can't recall telling someone to fuck off here. Which is surprising since I work at a mine. In the mining industry (as many others do) we tend to it use it both as a term of endearment, and minus the off, in the place of a comma. --kelapstick 02:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlock request for Mario Ferri article

Hi Dennis Brown: in April 2011 you contributed to this deletion discussion of Mario Ferri, a Canadian activist/organizer/politician; the article's deletion request was vetted by User:Xymmax, who wrote after some discourse:

"The result was delete. The rough consensus in this discussion is that the subject does not currently meet the general notability guideline or WP:POLITICIAN. I or any another admin will be happy to restore the article should the subject win the election or otherwise become notable. Xymmax"

Mr Ferri was actually notable for several reasons prior to his entry into the political arena, and handily qualifies under WP:GNG guidelines as a community activist/organizer going back to the 1980s. I visited some stacks and clipping archives and copied some 80 articles to properly rewrite his story, which now resides in my sandbox over here. Mr. Ferri was the subject of several articles written on him, including the Government of Ontario’s Corps D’Elite Award he received, presented to only a few people annually, with awardees often being cited in the unicameral Ontario legislature's proceedings. This was noted prominently in a half page article on him, "Mario Ferri Receives Corps D’Elite", and in a few other articles as well. Ferri was the object of print media and TV news long before his Misplaced Pages article was created, and about 30-35 articles feature prominent photos of him at various projects he initiated or at the protest demonstrations he organized, including in front of the home of the Premier of Ontario (an elected position equivalent to governor).

I posted this request to Xymmax to undelete/unlock Mario Ferri's article space, but unfortunately Xymmax has not been active on Misplaced Pages since mid-February. I would appreciate if you can assist by assessing Mr. Ferri's notability under GNG, and unlock his article space if you agree, so the rewritten article can be posted there. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article isn't salted, but it would be best to review and then do a histmerg on it (blends the edits histories of both articles into one article). I'm at work, so it might take a while to fully read. If it is borderline, I would say go to WP:REFUND but if it is obvious, we would just boot it over, there is no reason to be bureaucratic about it. First I need to find time to read and research it, to know it passes the "would likely survive another AFD" test. I'm going to ping DGG as well. If he says it passes, that is good enough for me and I would happily do all the histmerg paperwork. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is entitled to another try, but I cannot predict the result of AfD2, On the basis of the sourcing and tone of the proposed article, I would probably !vote for deletion--but don't judge by me, for I'm known for a rather deletionist stand towards local people & events. (on the other hand, I support notability for losing major party candidates for national-level posts, but the consensus is otherwise. ) It is justified in such situations to let the article go into mainspace, and see what happens, but my own advice is to wait for further good material, because another rejection will make it harder to try again.

The problem with tone is so pervasive it needs a total rewrite, not just a history merge. There's an overall promotional attitude--the article should describe his activities, not show off his importance. The battle over the waste dump belong in the article on it: the article says "widely credit to" and this is the sort of statement that needs to be replaced with some specific quotations from the best available NPOV sources. The minor community activities should be eliminated: they belong only on his own website. Non-specific statements like "contributed to" , "instrumental in", "a supporter of" etc. are meaningless. The awards are trivial. Quotes from the citation of the award are unreliable, just like book-jacket blurbs. Try to avoid adjective, especially adjectives of praise; try to avoid saying the same thing in several sections. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. I had to read and search it piecemeal today, but was already leaning in the exact same direction as you are, that the tone is too promotional. I'm generally very lenient on local people, culture and events as it is a bit part of what I write, but I think that DGG is right that it needs cleaning up if it is to stand a chance. Take DGG's advice, tone down the adoration just a bit, and I will review to move when you are done. Even then, it is a 50/50 chance as almost all he is known for is very local, but if we are going to put it out there, lets do it in a way that gives it the best chance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the article's fawning tone. Most of the adjectives are now gone and some material on the waste facility has been removed and will be transferred to the Keele Valley Landfill article instead. I'd missed the basics of reporting just the facts, facts and facts, and have now taken Saint-Exupery's advice more to heart ("a work is complete not when there isn't anything left to add, but when there isn't anything left to remove"). A second reading would be appreciated. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Give me a day. I have to hit the gym (doctor's orders) then I have a hot date with the Mrs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's a hot enough date, you don't need the gym ;-) the panda ₯’ 23:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a bit too hot and distracting  ;-)

In any event with the extra time I went into an online database to improve the sourcing and pulled out a number major media articles on Ferri and his work, including from the Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation paper. The database also provided two articles of criticism which are now included for more balanced coverage. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The draft that Harryzilber has created at User:Harryzilber/sandbox looks like it might survive AfD. If restored to article space it probably needs to be histmerged with the old article now sitting under Mario Ferri. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

History merge complete. I didn't bother with the talk page. Good work, hope it sticks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Gracias/Dekuji/Maltsomesc/Spasbo/Merci/Siesiu/Obrigado and thank you, DGG and EdJohnston for the assist. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

George Marsh (martyr)

Hello, a year ago you were kind enough to help me at George Marsh (martyr) in a little war of reverts that ended in sockpuppetry. The editor has returned and I have reverted his addition. Can ping I you if he reverts me because I'm not in the mood for an edit war. J3Mrs (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a note on the talk page. He was a sockmaster, and the individual socks were indef blocked, but a first time sockmaster usually only gets a week or two, as he did. If he doesn't start an edit war, then all is well. Just remember that WP:3RR is in effect, this isn't vandalism, so don't get caught up in an edit war yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sincere apologies for the unnecessary sockpuppetry log, Dennis. Did not realise you were so Trigger happy .... it's just your awesome efficiency. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Anyone that likes Weird Al is alright in my book ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I should have thanked you here not elsewhere for your time and patience, my only excuse is the funeral wouldn't wait for me. Thanks again. J3Mrs (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• No problem. Always willing to lend a hand. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ghana

Hello Denis, I have worked on the page and removed the excessive repetitions of the Akan groups, but the Ghana and USA match is coming up, during the last world cup the Ghanaian team scored against the USA and if I remember there was some vandalism so please keep an eye on the page as a precaution, if its possible to limit edits on it for a few days, I think it will be helpful thanks Thesunshinesate (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Will do what I can. If vandalism comes back, you are welcome to ping here but it might be faster to just file it at WP:RFPP. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to msg left on my talk page...."Please hold off edits to the article and go to the talk page first. I'm getting calls for protection but you are the only one editing. I would prefer if you went to the talk page and addressed some concerns there, and developed consensus first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)"

• honestly I don't need to go on talk page because there is nothing for me to discuss. I've already gone back and fourth with the other editor and said what I had to say about him removing sources and attacking the content yet the hasn't provided anything that discredit or provide a reason that what is written shouldn't be there other than it being about the Akans. I don't have else to say I have said it all. As for you talking about "calls" for protection. I only asked you to look out for the page because of the upcoming game. I've never asked you for anything else and as you said herw and the talk page if vandalism occurs or an edit war arise it will be reportedThesunshinesate (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It isn't about me or your request. My job is to prevent problems, which is why I left the note. It was another admin that wanted me to protect the article. I'm not debating the content, I'm saying that when content is being disputed, we ALL are obligated to use the talk page. None of us are exempt. This is how we avoid edit wars and fights, we stop and talk first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • Denis, I thought you meant I was trying to make you take my side my apologies, but as for the talk page I went and said what I had to say, I'm noneThesunshinesate (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfA talk page

Please feel free to delete the whole exchange, including my comments. I should have known better than to feed the troll. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• No harm done, I've done the same when I've thought it might be worthwhile. I just took advantage of the opportunity to request page protection and that exchange helped establish the need. 28bytes was kind enough to protect then clean up. It all worked out. If I haven't told you recently, I consider you one of the good ones. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that! --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your inappropriate response to my simple question to you

In the Dave Brat article I asked a good faith question to you to get your input on a discussion taking place on the Brat talk page. Your response was an attempt to intimidate me into silence and to threaten me into submissiveness. I did not know that is the way that admins are suppose to act when editing Misplaced Pages. You can review your snarky, inappropriate response that falsely accuses me of "disrupting"[REDACTED] here: false claim by an admin of me "disrupting"[REDACTED] when I was simply asking an admin for his opinion. Is this an issue that I take up with you or with a certain Notice Board? Do you think Jimbo would look at my simple question as "disrupting Misplaced Pages" like you do? What do you think? It is a talk page. I try to talk to you. If you did not want to answer you could have simply said that. Why did not have to lie and say that I was "disrupting Misplaced Pages"? That has to be one of most immature, responses that I have ever gotten from an admin. It was truly unprofessional. So, please help me out, who do I talk to about this? Are you the only source?--NK (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• You can take it to WP:ANI if you feel I did something inappropriate. Your actions on that page are inappropriate, accusing people of POV, putting words into other's mouths, so if you feel I've wronged you, WP:ANI is the place. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I gave you the link for "incidents", but you instead chose drama mongering on Jimmy's page. It's actually a bit humorous, but I digress. If you would stick with the merits on the Dave Brat RFC and less on making points, putting words in people's mouths and accusing others of bad faith, you might actually find more success in getting others to answer your questions. If the question is in bath faith, I'm not interested in answering it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk: Jimbo Wales

The OP has started a thread at User talk: Jimbo Wales. (By the way, the original exchange did look to me like a hostile question. Maybe the OP is unaware of when a question looks hostile on the Internet.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, I saw. You are correct that my interpretation of asking hostile questions, loaded questions or otherwise is itself a disruptive practice, designed to get someone to back down from their !vote. His later declarations on the page were just as bad. Assumptive questions and an inability to accept that anyone else is as clever as he and just might have a different opinion. Anyway, anyone jumping to Jimmy's page is usually more concerned with creating drama than finding solutions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please. What later declarations are you talking about? And this next question is NOT a rhetorical question and it is a good faith question: Please outline for me the "later declarations on the page" that you are referring to? Please outline this. I am not trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages. I just want to know what you are referring to. You made the statement please show me what I said as "later declarations." I stopped participating on that talk page after your over the top response to my question. Also, how can you jump to the conclusion that I think that no one is as clever as me? I never stated that and I don't believe that. That is a personal attack. Please do not engage in personal attacks.--NK (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And now you are warning me about personal attacks? I'm genuinely baffled. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• As a number of people have opined on your question and follow up, and they universally found it to be pointed and or disruptive, I have collapsed that portion of the discussion without comment. In case you don't know, it is quite common to do that to exchanges that only serve as a distraction in a formatted discussion or poll. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

perhaps

See last section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

old Afd notices

No need to reply. I have placed old afd notices on the talk pages of Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956) and CyberBerkut, for which you, today, closed the deletion discussions. No action is required. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Those are optional, but I like them as well, I just forgot. Thanks. I just back into working with AFDs after 2 years of not doing much there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Chronology of UFWC

dear Sir,

You have deleted that article. How can I find the information mentioned in it? Կարեն Վարդանյան (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.ufwc.co.uk/ under "results", as that was where all the data came from. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sir, I knew about results at that site. I meant that there were chronology and notes in the article here, which are not there in that site. Կարեն Վարդանյան (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The article Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships has been deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships, so the information is no longer accessible to the public. That means the only place to find the information is at the single source that was used to create it in the first place. Some of the information might be found at Unofficial Football World Championships. The chronology is absolutely on that website, the only information that I saw that wasn't was the "days held". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please reblock this user

This 68.81.21.243 is reeking havoc an several pages. I see you have blocked him previously. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• IPs are tricky, you never know how fast they cycle into a new IP for each user. Regardless, it is the same blocked editor User:Tenzinwestcoast, and I just put 3 months worth of block on that IP. Feel free to revert any of their edits that need it. You are welcome to ping me here if he comes back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the expired semi-protection at Dorje Shugden page, and the current vandalism. Also another IP, 46.44.222.109 restoring the exact edits of the last IP.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a garden variety content dispute, not vandalism, VictoriaGrayson. Vandalism has a very specific and narrow meaning here on Misplaced Pages. Please don't misuse the term. We may be dealing with tenacious, disruptive POV pushers. But that's not vandalism. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @VictoriaGrayson: Check WP:ATWV. If other user was a sock puppet, call him that, not vandal. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, he is deleting academic material, and rephrasing text at Dorje Shugden. Bushranger called it vandalism, so I also called it vandalism. Get off my case, respectfully.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• As this is a long term problem, I've semi-protected the page for 3 months. If others need it for having ongoing issues, ping me here and I will review each article individually. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DB, do you want to see the Shugden situation here?. It seems every Admin is on vacation.Heicth (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bushranger unblocked one, , so it is better to ask him about it. As for being "on vacation", of course they can't be on vacation, this is a volunteer job ;) I'm at work currently and researching an admin abuse case while doing stuff I'm getting paid to do, it might better be at an SPI case. I will try, but it is Monday 10:44am where I live. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to see whats going on at Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've protected that a≠rticle as well, I get the feeling that meatpuppetry is afoot. As such, blocking isn't very effective but protection can be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh. I think I removed the semi-protection by reverting the article. Is that even possible?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope :) You just removed the little lock thingy that lets people know it is semi-protected. If you go back through the edits, I bet you can figure out which part it is and put it back. Always at the top of the article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay. I thought they made me into an Admin.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you would have a LOT more scars and open wounds if you made admin. :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see admining Misplaced Pages is a pain in the Buttocks.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport

Hello Dennis, Could I please draw your attention to unregistered user IP 86.156.53.27. He/she has made the same seven unreferenced/POV edits to Gatwick Airport today and has totally ignored requests from myself and admin. MilborneOne to stop. As you will know, I have no intention of edit warring, but do feel that these actions should be stopped. I have also pinged MilborneOne, but guess he has retired for the night. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think that was enough reverts, so I did a short block as they seem very focused on promoting the organization more than building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, Many thanks for your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the page will require protection, it is on its way. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Your ruining all my fun

Admin suggestion

Hi Dennis. You recently wrote "We need more active admin .... but up to date admin". Has anyone asked XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk · contribs) if they're interested in running for the mop? I've seen lots of content work, (15,000 edits, 66% in article space) plenty of activity in GA and FA reviews, often in high visibility articles, and they always seems to offer good advice and a cool head. Their user page says they want to be an admin, so perhaps somebody could enquire about it. Ritchie333 11:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As much as I would like to be one someday and highly appreciate such an offer, I feel it's too soon to run. I'm not sure if I have enough experience yet. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 11:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You have plenty of edits, but I understand if you don't think you've had enough time. Actually, it is a good sign. If you think it is something that might interest you in 6 to 12 months, but you want to learn some basics along the way that will help you, let me know. I can do a review and point you in the right direction to gain some experience that might help towards that end. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Talking about the candidate, I guess your block history is not impressive. I haven't looked about the incident behind your blocks but I just want to add that it is one important point majority of voters on RFA would count. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. Hadn't seen that. From my estimation, you need at least 18 months from the last block, and even then, some will oppose. We have had admin pass with block logs, even with unanimous consent (Berean Hunter is one example) but it takes time for old wounds to heal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! I wasn't expecting a block log. However, having looked through it, I think there are very extenuating circumstances, and I also note that Snuggums took the block with good grace, apologising for anything they did wrong and sitting it out after one request. Not the pattern we often see with socks, which tend to leave a trail of declined requests. Ritchie333 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

However, User:Ritchie333 himself has a clean block log, as well as lots of other desirable admin qualities... I seem to recall a conversation some time back where I suggested I'd support you running for RFA, Ritchie, what say you? Still up for it? Yunshui _水 12:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin Acalamari had previously advised me that if I made any attempt to run for admin within a year of being blocked, chances are it would be quickly rejected. This was another reason I (for now) decline running. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

He is correct. Fortunately, it doesn't mean a lifetime bar from betting the bit, just that you have a few things to prove, which just takes time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You know I was surprised by this RFA. Though he was blocked like 4 years ago, never again. As my edit count is growing, I am probably more concerned with blocks than ever. Sticking to self-imposed 1rr is best idea. Great editors such as GoingBatty, Ser Amantio di Nicolao and few others haven't got any blocks and they have 100,000s of edits. It is simply amazing! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, edits aren't the key thing as long as you have "enough". I nom'ed Basalisk, he had about 6k edits. I had 18k when I ran. More edits help, and I think that the more edits you have, the more likely they will let little things slide since it is a smart part of the whole, but it seems that demeanor is the key, how you handle disputes, as well as having some experience with admin areas, even if only slight. I'm that way, I'm more concerned about their likelihood of abuse than anything else. Most everything else you learn on the job. You can teach tools, you can't teach demeanor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely stick to 1RR, or even 0. It does mean you look at an article and think "but this is wrong" but I find it highly likely that the locus of the dispute, whatever it is, will be lost on most readers. Ritchie333 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

When I've "healed" enough, it is quite nice to know you'd be willing to guide me before I run for admin :). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 13:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem I've got with putting myself forward for the mop is that I very occasionally (and it really is only about once every six months on average) get cross with someone and have a pop at them. I think on every occasion it's been somebody else saying or implying something in the US is better than that in the UK (example here) which seems to press my bezerk button (even though my partner is from the US). I've always thought that would kill an RfA stone dead if the target turns up to !vote "oppose". You can dig out other examples in my contributions. Don't know if that'll be an issue. Anyway, Snuggums, I personally think you've got the right attitude and demeanour and even your block actually strengthens your cause to me. Something to think about, anyway. Ritchie333 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I remember seeing that but didn't say anything at the time as I didn't see a benefit in the heat of the moment. I think you took that comment out of context. He was just saying that sometimes a title will point to a UK target, sometimes a US target. Durham is a town near me, a very key city in North Carolina, but it is properly pointed at a UK subject, not the Durham, North Carolina article. I saw it as him just giving an example, to counterpoint the fact that Raleigh should (at least arguably) point to Raleigh, North Carolina. I thought the comment added balance, and wasn't saying anything was better than anything else. I have no idea how that was supposed to be bigoted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't at all - I was just annoyed, and felt the reference to Durham was irrelevant to the discussion. A simple "Consensus has shown that there is sufficient evidence for the NC town to be the primary topic" would have been better. I would have self-reverted if somebody else hadn't got in first. Ritchie333 13:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought it added an example to show it wasn't a US bias thing, so the reaction honestly confused me. In closing, it is sometimes helpful to compare or contrast so it doesn't look like it IS US bias. I've done similar. One thing about getting the bit, you are a bit under the microscope at all times, so I've found myself biting my tongue a lot more than before. You don't have a choice, in order to tamp down drama. It isn't always easy, and I'm not always successful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ritchie :D, but could you perhaps elaborate on how my blocks strengthen my cause? Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant I felt your conduct during your block puts you in more positive light than most editors who get blocked. You showed remorse and remained calm, when it would have been so easy to reply with something like "I did not do this" (which I don't think would have worked). I really don't have a good answer for how we can handle this - if somebody accuses you of editing while logged out and you can't prove it wasn't you, what can you do? Ritchie333 14:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me conclude by proposing this to Dennis and @Yunshui:. Would you both be prepared to consider filing an RfA for myself (and Snuggums, if they want it) sixths months from now (January 2015) provided you can find no evidence whatsoever of angry mastadons or toy throwing in that time period, regardless of what conflicts or disagreements come up? Ritchie333 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would. I think we all know what the problems are, you tend to vent a bit more than you need, but 6-9 months of demonstrating that it is a choice and not central to your character should be sufficient. With the bit, you really MUST pull back a little to keep the peace, but I think you are fully capable of doing that. Unquestionably, you have a good grasp of policy and like a hand full of others, even when I disagree with you, I tend to learn something new. I think Snuggums needs closer to 12-18 months due to the block and I haven't looked at his history enough to make a decision, but I would be open minded. I don't think a history with bumps along the way should disqualify anyone from being an admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis, I've essentially been "clean"—so to speak—since the end of March. There's no way I'd run for admin sooner than April 2015. Been trying to keep a good standing for as long as possible. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Its a good start. Life is easier around here if you get along. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You can definitely count me in for a co-nom, in both cases. I look forward to seeing you both with the mop this time next year. Yunshui _水 08:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

MosesM1017 repeatedly introducing deliberate factual errors in articles

Hello. I noticed an unconstructive edit by MosesM1017 on your user page, so I reverted it. I then took a look at his talk page and contributions, and noticed both the final warning you had given him and that all of the three edits he had made today after being given the warning were vandalism, introducing deliberate factual errors, resulting in him being reported by me at WP:AIV for vandalism after being given a final warning. So either his case waits in line there for whatever time it takes, or you decide his fate... Thomas.W 18:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• It sounds so ominous when you say it like that. Will probably let it set there, let a second set of eyes see it. Always good for cases like this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. It will be a third set of eyes, though, since I took a look at his edits too. And I wouldn't have reported him if I hadn't felt it was blockable... Thomas.W 18:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Although I haven't said as much, it looks like it is a WP:CIR issue, to be frank. I never decide those alone and prefer at least two admin determine that a block is needed. Those are touchy situations, and I get the feeling that is the problem, rather than just plain vandalism. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• It definitely looks like a CIR-issue, combined with a desire to test how far he can go without being blocked. Just so he knows the next time he creates an account. Thomas.W 19:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. The good thing is that it isn't just you and I that sees the problem. If he comes back doing the same, a longer block will be applied. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good. It shows that I'm not totally off the mark. Editors like MosesM1017, i.e. editors who deliberately introduce factual errors in articles, a type of vandalism that is often very difficult to detect, cause a lot more damage to Misplaced Pages than vandals posting four-letter words or replacing whole articles with nonsense characters, since repeatedly finding errors in articles can make readers believe that nothing they read on Misplaced Pages can be trusted. Thomas.W 21:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We were just talking about that at the village pump. Actually, his is CIR, I've seen a stealth vandal that went for over a year, a few edits a week, and once uncovered, created total hell to go back and undo all the little changes they made. That is just malicious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted portion of Flathead engine article.

Hello, Dennis. I am new here, so i was not sure if you could see my answer on my user talk page, so I will put it here in whole too. My appologies, if this is redundant message.

"I reverted you on the rather large deletion. In the spirit of WP:BRD, please go to the talk page of that article and discuss why you want to delete such a large section that is referenced. I'm open minded and will listen, but any time we remove 20 percent of the whole article, it is pretty common for other editors to want to at least discuss it first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hello Dennis. We have discussed this with the user who wrote that part in Finnish version on the article. In there we come to a conclusion that it should be removed, as it does have personal views about it. Fact of the matter is, that those proposed improvements on the flathead are based on technology that is still on develobment phase, or have not been proven in any way. And it has been discussed in other forum, that is more engine oriented, and determined that it would not make flathead any more potential option in todays world, because engine has fault in its basic design, that could not be overcomed. User who wrote the finnish article and part that has been removed, is the same person who editet part "potentials" to this flathead article. That is why i did not see why it should be discussed again. Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)" Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• The place to discuss is really at Talk:Flathead engine. As for the Finnish Wiki, that is completely unrelated. We never use decisions from other language Wikis on other wikis. Nothing wrong with introducing the same argument here, but each language Wiki is 100% different with different rules, different standards of notability, verification, etc. The opposite is also true, if we decide to delete an article or section on the English Misplaced Pages, that doesn't mean any other language Wiki has to do the same. The same is true for other forums. Again, introduce the idea and discuss with others, I would love to here it there on the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought that there would be no need to discuss a matter that is clearly not done in accordance to[REDACTED] rules. But now i have started a discussion about removal of the articles partition. Thank you from your advise. Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

NorthAmerica 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

New user with good experience?

I was amazed to see a new user joined today with 7 edits starting his life on Misplaced Pages from AfD! See his contribs; all his edits are at AfD. This makes me concerned that he might be (I'm not sure) a sock of somewhat experienced blocked user (I don't know who). It is very odd (for me) to see a very new user starts from AfD. So, I wanted you to keep an eye on his contribs. Thanks, Jim Carter 12:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I already looked at that first thing this morning, was already keeping an eye out, but I appreciate the heads up. ;) I agree that it is doubtful this is their first account, although I won't jump to conclusions just yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Admin-about-town

Wow, you're famous — you have your very own Wikipediocracy thread, with controversy and spilled bile and everything. LINK. Hope you are doing well. I love ya, man, keep up the good work! All the best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Its funny how much factually incorrect stuff is there. Like deleting my page...any editor that asks me to delete their user page or any other page other than talk, I do it no questions asked. Always have. There is a reason I deleted it, but it isn't what anyone would think. I just haven't bothered undeleting it, there isn't anything to hide. I probably AM ANI's biggest participant. So what? It isn't by accident, I said I intended to patrol ANI in my RFA, Q1 . And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here. The "is that his real name? stuff is every funnier. Anyone with the tech savvy of a 15 year old could locate me and verify that its my real name. Tarantino got it right because he bothered to look. I've never tried to hide it, I just don't advertise it in plain site. I've worked there 20 years, plus spinning off my own company currently, which is why I can the COI disclaimer on my user page. Anyway, I appreciate your kind words there, but that thread kind of shows why I don't frequent the website. I personally have plenty of complaints about Misplaced Pages, but I find people there get it wrong as much as they get it right. Not talking about anyone in that thread specifically, but some users on that site don't really care about the truth, they just want to run people down. And they have less accountability than Misplaced Pages itself, so I don't see the point, and I can't take it too serious. But thanks for the link, it was slightly amusing, slightly annoying, but not very enlightening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  I asked to have my Wikipediocracy account retired some time ago, and I've got no intention of ever going back there. The amount of bitchy backbiting from a few members makes even WP look like Eden. Eric Corbett 14:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  It is a shame, but I DO think that an outside website to act like a watchdog is a good thing in theory, but I've not seen it in practice. There are plenty of reasons to complain about admin, the power structure, or other aspects of Misplaced Pages. I screw up too, and have been called out onwiki and will admit it. There are real issues at enwp and it isn't always easy to discuss them here. Suffice it to say that not every person of power likes to see others talk about our flaws. That was one of the ideas behind WP:WER, to discuss our flaws, and as you know, not everyone with extra bits is happy with WP:WER. Maybe someday someone will make a website to do what WPO promised, with actual accountability for what people claim there. Then I would love to join a website. Otherwise, it is just hypocritical. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  I agree. WP is too often intolerant of criticism here, as evidenced by my ArbCom ban on participation at WP:RFA and even of voicing criticism of the way that admins are chosen or of admins in general. So there's a definite need for somewhere issues like those and many others can be explored without it being shut down by the secret police. But unfortunately WPO is very far from being that place. Eric Corbett 15:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  On a similar vein, I got an email off-wiki the other day saying I should look at a particular thread over there. I think with something the size and scale of Misplaced Pages, that takes in anyone from anywhere no questions asked, it's inevitable that there will be culture clashes, disagreements and criticism just like there are in the real world. The basic premise of Wikipediocracy as a neutral third-party criticism site is a sound one, playing Jeremy Paxman to Misplaced Pages's Michael Howard, some of the stuff on the site such as problems with Visual Editor and opinions on paid editing can be fair and reasonable comment, and some of the forum posts have made me cheer from the sidelines. But otherwise, yeah, I share your concerns that there's too much heat in there. I remember reading stuff on a forum somewhere where a couple of chaps took exception to something I said once and called me a nazi and worse - you just need to shrug it off. Don't hate the haters. Ritchie333 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

All understood. Take care and don't be a stranger! —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Same to you. If I ever get passed all this real life stuff, we should work together on bringing an article to GA. If we can work through all that, then we will be true friends ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Afd closes

Heya, thanks for helping to close AfDs... it can get wretchedly backlogged. :( Anyway, as a quick heads up, be sure to subst: the {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} templates, else the bots won't pick up on the fact that the discussion's actually been closed. Personally, I just use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, because it takes at least 95% of the hassle out of the whole closing process (it even updates talk pages on keeps/merges + deals with relists gracefully). Anyway, thanks again, and cheers =) --slakr 02:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Facepalm I just started closing after two years and keep forgetting that. I'm an idiot. Thank you for fixing. I will install that, as I intend to start helping out with a half dozen or so most days, just to keep the backlog under control. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Jeez, Slakr, that script is insanely easy to use, very similar to the SPI scripts. Wish I had found that weeks ago. Thanks again! Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

A beer for you. And some extra beer. Hafspajen (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• An admin with beer is a dangerous thing...but an admin with EXTRA beer? You're just asking for trouble. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Law of One (Ra material)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Law of One (Ra material). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Unless I'm specifically asked a question, I will probably just sit it out and allow the community to review my close without my interference. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI: There is off-wiki canvassing going on about this article: here. jps (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The people I see opining at the DRV are pretty much regulars here, for the most part. Its kind of funny, that forum is just as divided as the community here, so I don't see that changing anything. Just like here, if you forced them all to agree on pizza toppings before ordering, they would argue until they starved to death. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
      • From what I read there is one troll who is apparently some sort of ex-believer. Anyway, thought you should know about how involved this thing is. jps (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Ignorance is bliss. Glad I knew none of this before I closed. I just put the blinders on and read the discussion. I can understand the disagreement as to the reading, it is all about how you interpret policy, but I'm still glad I didn't know there would be controversy, as I wouldn't want that to color my actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

UFWC page move request

• Hello, I noticed that you were the one that deleted the Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships page. Is there any way you could move that deleted page to my user space for me? I have an idea to merge it to Unofficial Football World Championships without it taking up too much room and I would need the data to do that. It seems like there are some people who do want to view the chronology, especially with the World Cup happening now. Thanks, Tavix |  Talk  14:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Done. Tavix, I moved to User:Tavix/Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships. Please ping me again in a week or two when you are done, so I can move it back and restore it to its deleted state. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown, I noticed the above editor has recreated the deleted information in the Unofficial Football World Championships article. They are suggesting you gave them permission. Isn't this defeating the object of deleting unencyclopedic information at AfD, only to recreate it elsewhere? Your AfD decision was "delete", not "merge", after all. Sionk (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

He didn't recreate it, I undeleted it and put it in his user space so parts of it could be incorporated into the main article. I believe it was originally split from that article then expanded. This would be helping him restore the article to a state before the split. If he was attempting to add all that material, I would object (as others would on the talk page of the article) but he isn't. As far as "delete" versus "merge", a "delete" doesn't disqualify the material from being used, just the material from being a stand alone article. He's added 15k, which is admittedly a big chunk (but less than half of the original article). With all that material, the article is around 51k, which isn't particularly huge. The place to discuss whether or not it should be included would be the talk page of the article. I generally don't get into those discussions and leave it to you guys, who edit the article regularly. He added, you reverted, now according to WP:BRD, he needs to take it to the talk page and you guys can figure out which parts (or all, or nothing) best serve the reader. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• All right, you guys win. Go ahead and delete it from my user space then. Just thought I was being helpful. Tavix |  Talk  14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Done Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Dennis, do contributions of banned users have to be removed even if they improve an article (e.g., ). Seems stupid, but I can't find anything either way in my skimming of the banning policy. Go Phightins! 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." seems to imply that they can stand, but I don't want to step on any toes. Go Phightins! 19:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some are slavish to the idea that edits MUST be reverted. "We must not reward socks!" is the mantra, and while I respect that, I don't think cutting off our noses to spite our faces is wise. Personally, if the edits are middle of the road quality or less, I tend to revert but if they do improve the article, I leave them alone. If I'm the one that made the block and someone comes behind and re-reverts me, or reverts where I wouldn't have, I just walk away and leave it to the editors to hash out. I keep the line between editing and admining a bold one. If I'm uninvolved, then I'm not really "admining", I'm just an editor and use my best judgement. Policy does not require that we revert socks, although it encourages it. Thus it is a judgement call, but a judgement of the editors (community), not the admins. We don't enforce policy that uses the word "should" like we do "must" except in the most obvious cases. If the article was created by a sock and almost no one has edited it, then it is almost always deleted under CSD#G5, obviously as an admin. I know I've answered a lot of questions and it might seem a bit confusing, but the right answer depends on the circumstances. And of course, your own judgement may be slightly different than mine in any given circumstance. If I've erred or left something out, someone will correct me shortly :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was involved in a case of this recently, and my feeling is that if we find ourselves fighting to prevent someone improving the encyclopedia, then something has gone badly wrong - I'm not at all surprised how our performance here is often seen by outsiders as a weird translocation of arse and elbow. My suggestion is that, when you see someone stupidly removing good content just because it was added by an officially-condemned unperson, you revert the removal and comment that you personally take responsibility for it now - that way you are saying "I'm adding this content, which I took from suitably-licensed material written by a third party". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If we'd revert everything banned users have contributed, we would have no "Remember not, Lord, our offences", for example, - we would loose a lot! Please tell me that we can't be so stupid. I keep translating the works of the banned and sing their praises, sometimes silenced, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

help

Well not sure how to word it but im here again with a request for a standard offer I have had it before twice and I will be going abroad for a several months so today is probably the day when you wont see my ip until december Its just a simple request I know I have broken the rules by removing pov pushers when I am banned but if I can lay of for a long time and be given a chance LAST CHANCE I can make a legitimate and honest effort not to sock ever again I have been doing it since 2008 and I am tired off it so is it possible for me to lay for for whatever time period you agree on and come back in the future? I could of asked another admin and received it but I want you on my side since I have noticed you are close to Darknesshines a user who hates me so please one more chance? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I know this place can make you crazy and it is easy to get pushed into one side of a POV to counteract what you think is POV from another. For some people, Misplaced Pages can chew you up and spit you out, emotionally speaking. For some, it is flatly an addiction. Maybe even for me a bit, but I can quit any time I want ;)

I'm all about second chances, for a couple of reasons. One, I know that many "POV pushers" are just as I describe above, good people that get pushed into one side of a POV argument and just decide to live there. It brings out the worst in them. Second, I've blocked you a dozen times or more and hundreds of other socks, and I know you can't "stop" sockpuppetry, you can only slow it down. If there is a chance to bring someone over from the sock side to the productive side, it is a double win for admin, plus a win for the editor. But as you note, it means you have to be able to demonstrate some discipline before the unblock, if you want me to believe you can show discipline after an unblock. I'm only one person, so keep that in mind. A standard offer would require community support in your case. I don't have the full history (and to be honest, I'm ignorant on the topic you edit in) but if put in genuine effort to quality for the WP:STANDARDOFFER, I'm willing to entertain supporting it. Even if it is granted, you would be under close supervisiion for another 6 or more months. It would be more productive that what you are doing now, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those words they mean allot I hope we can arrange something because being a sock for 6 years is getting very tiring and emotionally draining with all the stress and anger I will be back this afternoon or tomorrow and I hope by then we can sort something out. Thank you dennis I can see why Darknessshines thinks so highly of you. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey dennis whats the procedure now? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The procedure is to disappear for at least 6 months without any breach, longer is better to be honest. WP:STANDARDOFFER mentions that specifically, although we all just saw Russavia get denied after 1 year (his case was exceptional, I supported, but twice as many opposed). This is demonstrating you have the discipline to do what you say you will do. You then log in to your original account and use WP:UTRS, leave an email and request that I contact you. They will have to forward it to me, I don't have access. I will then email you, research to see if you have kept your part of the bargain, and if I feel comfortable doing so, make a proposal at WP:AN for the ban to be lifted. It would likely come with editing restrictions, hard ones at first, that could be lifted over the following year. Probably ban on the topics that got you in trouble to start with and 1RR on everything, but they would be lifted in time. If you had problems in those areas, they might never be lifted, that is the reality. Or they may simply refuse the allow you come back, and you have to wait 6 months to try again. I'm not going to lie, it isn't guaranteed and it is an uphill climb, however, if you will do what you need to do, I will do what I can. What you are doing now is pretty fruitless, so this would be better for all concerned, even if a bit painful for a while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok got it I will be using this ip AND ONLY THIS IP I will be back to your talk page in six months and we can take it from there hopefully it will work out. So I make it 22nd december as my come back to email you then we can talk about the other dam long processes peace out. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway for me to contact you dennis? I will be away from home from 27th June to October 16th and access to the net will be tight and I may have to use different ip which will sort of ruin it If you need to confirm anything with me or discuss issues with the Standard Offer I would be grateful if you could con~tact me on my email by I do not want to show my email on your talk page is there any other way? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to post here probably isn't helping. As I said above, the best thing is to use the UTRS system and ask them for forward it to me. It will get to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thats okay I will not message you (or anyone else for that matter) until after 6 months have passed sorry for all those annoying messages and thanks again for another chance. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved from the top of my page...

Mr. Brown, I assure you I take this seriously. I will endeavor to provide diffs as soon as possible. Meanwhile, if you have a moment to look at my talk page history, it is all right there. I'll return tonight for the diffs. --Paisan1 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BTR#Finding users who misuse their user page for advertisement

Hi Dennis. Just to let you know that I asked for such a list as discussed. --Leyo 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I added a note and idea for a simple algorithm that won't be perfect, but is super easy and will catch over 80% of them. Simple things are more likely to get approved. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

YesAllWomen

Hello, a few days ago I raised concerns on ANI regarding repeat vandalism on page YesAllWomen, and you were helpful with board suggestion of WP:RFPP. We are continuing to have problem on talk:YesAllWomen, but now of a different nature. Is there a board that would be appropriate to gain feedback when an involved editor closes RfC without prior discussion or consensus to close it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:YesAllWomen#Reopening_old_RfC

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:YesAllWomen#Requests_for_comment.3B_Gender_breakdown

Additionally, is there dispute resolution available when dispute includes more than two editors? The editor who closed RfC is fresh off block for edit warring in another article, and their recent participation has been described by myself and at least one other editor as non-collaborative. Things have gotten kind of crazy on page, and if things continue along these lines, it seems we are going to need an RfC, just to open an RfC.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DR covers our dispute resolution system, but generally speaking WP:DRN is for content disputes. As far as the RFCs, an involved person should NEVER close an RFC, and it can be reverted at the time. Any closer that is reverted should never revert their own close back, which would show they are too involved, for instance. I would have to look closer at these examples and will try later. Or maybe a talk page stalker will do me the favor. Closing can be done by non-admins, but they are held to the same standards as admin or they will be reverted. In some cases, we have topic banned serial closers who did so poorly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you, or any talk page stalkers, get a chance, could you take a look? Additionally, I want to make sure I understand correctly, would it be appropriate for me, as an involved editor, to reopen it? If so, how do you reopen a closed RfC? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating. The editor in question reopened it with drastic changes that make it kind of hard to read or follow. They appear to be in process of editing it further, so hopefully it will improve. Second link above would link to that new reopened version. This is what it looked like when it was first closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:YesAllWomen&oldid=614003069#Requests_for_comment.3B_Gender_breakdown This is getting very long and confusing and I'm sorry to bother you with this. I read through WP:DR, and I'm still not sure where to take this for outside input, if things continue to be non-productive on talk page, so any suggestions would be appreciated. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• That is a lot of material to read. I've hashed through some of it (no pun intended? 0;-D ), but a couple of things confuse me. It is an RFC about a possible future event, which to me makes it problematic, if not null. Second, the article itself has some notability concerns. By myself, I'm not smart enough to determine since we don't have a ton of previous articles on hashtags, and frankly I'm not a Twitter user, but all this RFC debate seems like a lot of gyrations for little result. I might need to get some outside input on this or find a better forum than my talk page. I'm not sure where to go to contest an RFC, again not something I've done, so give me a bit. This is the point where I ping Drmies, DGG, Bishonen and MelanieN for their input, as I trust their judgement on notability of feminism articles, notability in general, and procedure on RFCs and other WikiGoodies. I don't want to misstep here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not really an RFC about a future event (or at least it wasn't, but it seems to be subject to ongoing editing and has become somewhat confusing). The debate is whether we should specify the genders of those killed and wounded, in the killing spree which inspired the hashtag. Currently, it is only possible to specify the gender of those killed, because the media never released gender data on those just wounded, but if the gender data on the wounded is ever made available, some want to include it too. Currently, it is known he killed 6 people (4 men and 2 women). Some want to just say he killed 6 people, and link to main article on killings for more data. Some want to say he killed 4 men and 2 women and provide no further details. Some want to say he killed 4 men and 2 women and also refer to a Youtube video he released prior to attack where he said he would enter a sorority house and kill every woman inside. The media has reported he improvised after he was unable to gain entry into the sorority house.

Regarding notability concerns, they have been raised previously. The article has previously been nominated for deletion and also merge. The result was do not delete and do not merge. It's an unusual article that people seem to have strong opinions about and I think that is because it involves the topic of misogyny.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Dennis. I'm not inclined to try to mediate anything there at this point, because on reading through the talk page I think mediation would be hopeless. Not because the issues involved are intractable - they aren't - but because there is clearly one person who is causing the problems. The battlefield mentality, the non-consensus closure and rewordings, the arbitrary imposing of one person's views on the discussion - these things are all coming from one person, namely Obi-Wan Kenobi. I suspect as long as he is active at that page it will be impossible to reach consensus, and I wonder if anything can be done about that. As for notability, it may be unusual to have an article about a hashtag but GNG has clearly been satisfied. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look and am inclined to agree with Melanie; I can't do much deep digging today anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Of the last 100 diffs on the talk page, 52 are by Obiwankenobi. Of the last 250, 101 are. We do appear to have a case of bludgeoning going on. Then he tried to close an RFC that he had participated in . Then he tried to start then close another RFC . So yes, I'm seeing a pattern here as well, and Obiwankenobi does seem to be the common thread. I'm not sure mediating is the solution as well, but I'm not sure which tools in my kit are best to deal with this problem, or if dropping it off at WP:AN for a topic ban or consideration for WP:DE is the solution. The article topic isn't under discretionary or general sanctions that I'm aware of, so my options are somewhat limited here. As for notability, I'm happy to accept the opinion of you two as fact; I just wanted to address that before moving forward. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

received a ping, and just saw the above thread. Dennis I think it's not quite fair to say I closed an RFC - what I did instead was put it on hold temporarily -- I didn't close it in terms of concluding where the consensus lay. Instead, since Tara rejected the RFC question, and felt it was a non-neutral header, Bobo felt the RFC header was insufficient, I felt both her and Tara's additions to be non-neutral, (Bobo's statement, for example, characterized myself and Tutelary as "holdouts", suggested we were unwilling to compromise, and provided no explanation for the positions we held (while providing explanation for HER positions), thus poisoning the mind of the reader.) and Tutelary rejected the additions of Bobo and Tara and finally withdrew the whole RFC. Basically both sides were unsatisfied with the framing of the question, and I felt putting it in abeyance temporarily while we sorted out the framework of the RFC itself would be more beneficial than continuing to argue about the RFC while the RFC was open. I now see that my bold move was too aggressive and it was resisted, so after reflection I undid that change, abandoned my effort to draft a new neutral RFC header (since no-one had shown interest in helping with that) and simply added my own opening statement to match those of Bobo and Tara. I don't think mediation is necessary at this point, as the RFC is now open again, the original statements desired by Bobo and Tara are in place, and I don't plan on closing or opening new RFCs on that page anytime soon, nor arguing further about the language used by Bobo and Tara in their statements. I probably should have started with that option (e.g. adding my own neutral opening statement), vs. the approach I took, and I regret that I caused such drama and apologize for it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that we all can get too excited for our own good sometimes. I wrote that essay WP:BLUDGEON as much for myself as everyone else, back in my AFD patrolling days. I do think it is time to place your vote, then walk away, ignore the RFC for a week or two and see how it comes out. Even if you don't mean to, when your comments and activity are equal to half of what is going on, it rubs people the wrong way and makes them feel that their participation is diminished, is being drown out. If they are mistaken in their arguments, let them be. If you have some really good argument against their !vote, sometimes you have to trust that others reading it will already conclude the same thing. Or let someone else reply to it first. Don't let your eagerness to be part of the solution instead turn you into part of the problem. Any time you are participating, you really need to not play cleanup/mediate. It looks like you are trying to force your will. Don't even try. If an RFC has problems in its tone or significant POV concerns, drop off a polite and neutral note at WP:AN (not ANI) asking for a review from a disinterested party. It is a very informal thing. More than admin watch that page, and what is usually needed is simply someone objective and experienced. For now, I recommend editing something unrelated for a week or so and just let the current process do its thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, I think it's a good recommendation. The only thing I plan to continue to edit is my opening statement, which Bobo or Tara has expressed some consternation with, so if they have suggestions that make sense to me I will tweak accordingly, but otherwise I will let the discussion flow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, can you take a look at talk:YesAllWomen toward bottom of page? Despite your recommendation to take a break, Obiwankenobi is still very active on page. I pinged you, but shortly afterward, Obi added an “arbitrary break”, way above text where ping was, so if you referred to section where ping was previously, it wouldn’t be there anymore. Removed break, so it should now be in same section as when pinged, but just in case new talk page section headers are added in interim, it’s toward bottom of page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating, talk page has been re-sectioned again by Obiwankenbi in last few minutes. If it makes it easier to find the section I'm referring to, here are some difs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AYesAllWomen&diff=614161239&oldid=614158648

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AYesAllWomen&diff=614167527&oldid=614167050 --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

hi Bobo - let's be fair, I have only been responding to questions directed at me. I don't think it was expected I would stop talking entirely. I'm not commenting in the RFC and I made only a single trivial edit to it, basically undoing an undiscussed change you yourself made to my comments. If people stop making requests of me I will stop responding but I don't want to ignore good faith questions and requests. I'm not adding anything to the RFC in any case so editors commenting there won't see my name... Also those 'breaks' are regularly used to make it easier to edit long sections of text. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I really did mean to just walk away and let everyone figure it out on their own. I got the impression you were only going to correct some grammar, clarity, etc. Questions or not, they already know your opinion. I haven't gotten to all the details of this discussion, instead just looking at the gist but I'm really not up for another large case right now, I just don't have it in me. If it gets dragged to ANI, dominating the discussion is going to look bad to the mob that hangs there. You've been here long enough to know that, which is why I've tried to just stop it here so it can move forward without more drama and the threat of sanctions. I would suggest you simply unwatch the page until the RFC is over, as the amount of participation is likely to be seen as "excessive" by outsiders. The choice is yours, I'm not giving order, just advice. Anyway, we have reached the end of what I can accomplish here, and this week is full of medical stuff so I'm really not up for mediating the RFC. Anything else needs to go to ANI tomorrow if it is required, although I hope it isn't. I know this is long (sorry) but let me end with an expression that has often saved me from myself over the years: "I would rather be happy than be right". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis you are wise as always. I have already started telling people to ping me on my talk page if they want to ask me questions. And again, w.r.t the RFC itself, I haven't made any edits to it save fixing some indents, and I don't intend to do more. I simply request that Bobo not modify my comments any further. Cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the faith. And can we please do just that, leave the imperfections, walk away and keep this out of ANI? In the end, what I really want is good articles. Sometimes it takes bumping heads a little, but lets all try to get through this RFC the best we can, live with the results (whether we like them or not) and get back to editing articles. It IS all about the articles and the people that read them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, I never modified your comments, but I may restore the indentations that make it clear they are the comments of one specific editor, and not a general summing up view of all. Although honestly, I won't be making any further changes today as I'd prefer to take a little breather myself. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI on Ghana

Thanks for the note, I've replied on the ANI thread. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dennis

What do you think of Limiting case (philosophy of science) having three paragraphs now? Now other user is questioning the whole idea because he/she imagines that it is a "rare and strange" term. Thanks! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• All that is over my head, but I'm not sure it fixes the original concern. If it ends up deleted, you can ask for a copy in your user space and try building it up to an article, getting it reviewed by people smarter than me, those who know the subject. If they say it is an "article", I certainly won't stand in the way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

So upon the article's creation you immediately nominated it for deletion and now you don't care much about it any more? If you hadn't nominated it in the first place, before I had time to write more than two lines of text, if think it would stand as a legitimate article now. :( --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, upon the article's creation, I saw that I was (and am) confident is a topic that is likely never to be more than a WP:DICDEF. The solution is to go to AFD, like I did. If you are still confident it could be brought up to article status, I told you that the solution is to take it to your own user space and develop it there. I don't think it will make it, but I'm open minded to the possibility. If other experienced editors that knew the subject better than I did said "yes, it is an article", I would move it back into mainspace myself. And we are also talking about transwiki'ing the article to Wiktionary.org as well. If I didn't care much about it, I would not have replied at the AFD or here. And I wouldn't have even sent it to AFD for that matter, so obviously I care. That doesn't mean I'm always going to give you the answer you want, however. You can always go to the AFD and add a comment: "I've expanded the article, please reconsider your vote" I'm not convinced it is enough, but I won't argue about it there and let others make up their own mind. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your work. Sometimes I think that it is me who cares too much about this... lol. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand. That is why I said to put it in user space, or just start one in user space. I can help you with stuff like that. I can't help you with the content, waaaay above my head. My expertise is in more mundane topics, but I've been here for years and know the policies, tools and methods pretty well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I know how to do it. But thanks. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

YGM

As the title implies, you have new e-mail from me. Please respond by e-mail, as I'm not going to disable Javascript a second time. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee " 01:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Read and replied. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DRV - IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

As you participated in the AFD, you might be interested in the DRV. GiantSnowman 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was already looking at that very confusing DRV when I had to attend a meeting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom

Hi there, could you please move MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom in order to match the main article's expansion of the acronym?

Thank you, Prcc27 (talk)

(I was having technical difficulties moving it..) --Prcc27 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• About to sit down to eat for a bit. Can you link to the discussion on it? I shouldn't be moving stuff like that around unless there is a consensus and I need to view it first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The main article being moved was discussed here but the UK article being moved hasn't been discussed yet; I already brought it to the talk however. Sorry, I thought it would make sense if the main article matched the sub-article... I'm not sure how long it will take to get consensus considering that the last time someone used the talk for that article was last year in March. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no rush, any admin can move it, but there needs to a clear RFC or discussion on it, stating what you are trying to do: merge, overwrite, histmerge, or whatever. I never mind doing so, but just so you know, the best place when you need a utility move over another article (and the discussion is clear) is just asking at WP:AN, the admin noticeboard. There is always someone patrolling around, stuff like this tends to get done in a matter of a few minutes if all the paperwork is done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you! --Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We're looking for closers in advance for a 7-day straw poll

... and someone at WT:COI#Edit warring, and getting the RfC started mentioned your name. In a section above that, I had asked:

Would anyone object to a widely advertised 7-day straw poll to get a temporary answer to the question of how to structure COI RfCs? Seven RfCs at once (last November) is too many, but we're also going to get a bad result if the first RfC to launch shuts out any other attempts . Fifteen proposals in one RfC (last RfC at WP:PC#Timeline), including some about a week before the end, is probably too many, but we also can't expect that every reasonable proposal will be thought up on the first day, or by one person. We need some kind of reasonable limits if the end result is going to be meaningful.

If you have time to read the whole section I linked, that will give you a pretty good idea what's going on. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm flattered and normally willing to help when asked by my peers, but I'm in the middle of a series of tests after spending a day+ in the hospital. My doctor is entirely too worrisome. I'm very confident that all will be well, but there always exists a possibility that I'm mistaken, which would take me offwiki for a few weeks. Nothing for anyone to worry about, I assure you, but it would be irresponsible for me to make a promise that I might not could keep. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ugh, doctors. Get well. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Stupid, stupid, stupid

Hi Dennis. Just wanted to let you know that I feel even more stupid today after the edit warring kerfuffle of yesterday. When I went to the BLP noticeboard (that you referenced yesterday at AN/I) and prepared to ask for advice on policy regarding names and such on non-notable minor children, I saw that User:Elaqueate had already started a discussion on the same thing. Yesterday. As the edit warring was starting. Has NO clue that his comment here: contained a link to the discussion itself (found here ). If I had realized the discussion was happening, none of the edit warring (at least on my end of things) would have ensued. Yeah, that really happened. Thanks for your help and calm. Wish it had all gone differently. I've never wanted to have the blemish of a block on my record. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've said this a lot lately, but It happens. We can't change the past, it's all about how we move forward. I've done plenty of silly things in the past, including a few things that could have earned me a block if someone was looking (ok, this was back in like 06-07), so you aren't alone in making mistakes. On a positive note, seeing the problem, acknowledging the problem, those are things that make it less likely to happen again. Not for my benefit, but for your own. And learning some less blunt ways to express your displeasure is also a good idea. Honestly, there are times when I might have an edit summary of "I just don't have time for this" but what I'm really saying inside is "fuck off"....the key is filtering yourself before you put fingers to the keyboard ;) Live and learn, I suppose. Thanks for the note. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

,

This is really a list. List of light novels. Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I dunno. I see it is a list of mainly notable works, but is "light novel" sourced for each? The whole "big anime eyes" trend is kind of after my time, so I'm not familiar. The closest thing to anime I watched/read when growing up was Speed Racer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello friends

As my edit page notice now says, I'm dealing with some health issues right now. Nothing to be concerned about, but it does mean that my schedule here will be sporadic, and honestly, I'm a bit distracted and not at my best. I will still be around doing minor mopping and hopefully some article stuff for a change (speaking of, have you visited Glore Psychiatric Museum today?) I think it would be irresponsible for me to take on heavy or long winded mop lifting as I'm not at my best right now and it would be too easy to miss small details and make mistakes. Anyway, I appreciate your understanding, and don't worry, it is temporary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Take care of yourself, much more important than anything here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What she said. Eric Corbett 22:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Rest up, heal up, be well. My best wishes for a speedy recovery! Jusdafax 23:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• best wishes Dennis for a speedy recovery and thanks for your support and wise words which came at the right time. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Get well soon. Yours, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Your health is far more important than WP!, Take it easy & I hope you make a speedy recovery. Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Take care! After all you know better . OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• It was good to eventually speak to you recently - put yourself first for once and make getting better your priority! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Take care of yourself Dennis and get well soon fast, we'll pray for you. Science.Warrior (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Get well soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Raise up, heal up, be well. Great crop, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy recovery! Doc talk 02:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nominations

Hi, Dennis! Saw your comment at DYK talk. I am happy to nominate DYKs for other people (I always do a QPQ, so it isn't cheating the system.) Now and then if you have one you think could have a good hook, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'll take a look at the one you mentioned in your comment. Sure, I sometimes get frustrated with the DYK process - especially right now, when there is so much second-guessing after the nomination is approved, or even pulling hooks out of the queue after they are supposedly good to go - but I'm thick skinned and usually willing to go along with good faith corrections and suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article I linked is bizarre enough that it belongs in DYK, a museum dedicated to high security mental institutions. We probably wouldn't want to use that third image as a main page photo, however ;) I'm also working on another, currently in user space, that would be very interesting but not ready for prime time: User:Dennis Brown/Articles/The Chair of Thomasville I have 5 DYKs, I'm supposed to review one now to submit more, but I would rather deal with edit warriors at ANI than debate at DYK. Any day. And I'm not exaggerating. Maybe it has changed, but what little experience I have with it has been bad enough that I don't even consider it anymore. That is a shame since I tend to write articles on really off the wall or unique cultural stuff, like Knight's Spider Web Farm (got a DYK), Dinah the Pink Dinosaur, the current Glore Psychiatric Museum, Lexington Barbecue Festival and the like. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I once stalked away from DYK in disgust - after being told that the criteria for a DYK article were higher than for a Good Article! - but then things got better and I went back to submitting. The folks there can still be very picky but they usually do wind up improving the article. (I almost withdrew a nom recently, when a second-guessing reviewer started insisting on what I thought was an unreasonable condition; however, common sense and a second opinion eventually prevailed.) Your article looks great, definitely weird enough to generate a good hook. I am bumping up the referencing on the strange devices so I can use them as hooks. I'll run the hook by you before I submit it; we've got time. Oh, and the text is just barely long enough; want to add any more descriptions of strange devices? --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I could find and add more description for the "dilator", but somehow I think the image is enough. If the text is adequate, I would just go with it as is, I want to be careful to not artificially pad it. Down the road, I may go in and do harder research and find much more on it. I'm sure someone has mentioned it in more than one book before. It sounds like a really creepy place in most ways. I would loved to have visited back when it was in the original prison like building, which would be a statement on psychiatry in that era. Oh, and thank you for your interest, I appreciate that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not the dilators; they made even me squirm. I may add a little about the history of the place - about why he started collecting such stuff. And I will continue to add references, if I can find them, to strengthen the hook. (I want it to include the chair, and also the bath and the swing if I can find more independent sourcing.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm not one that savors working alone on articles, to be honest. I'm not a great writer, but I do find interesting and unusual things that deserve an article, and usually I'm more into research than prose. Some of these articles may never be more than a full page, but that is ok: if someone comes to Misplaced Pages looking for something that would ever pass WP:GNG, they should always at least find something, and some links to more info. Even little stuff like Eliphante, which sadly, I haven't found CC licensed photos of. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Then we'll make a good team. I called myself an "article geek" but I really haven't created all that many articles, 70 or so. I've done a lot more with improving and expanding articles. By tomorrow I should be ready with a hook. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is more than I have created. I've been holding out. I cheat and buy books like "Wierd places to visit in the USA" and thumb through them, dig up sources online and if I can find two or three good ones, I will create. I like Americana as a topic. Short articles, but overlooked topics. The other advantage of these more obscure articles is twofold: they are fun and they don't attract drama. My better work would include 1950s American automobile culture, but I had expert help from one of the finest enwp has to offer. That was still the most fun I ever had editing, got a DYK and GA out of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Having things at DYK is fun. That one I mentioned above is on the main page right now. I didn't expect it for a day or two but then I never have understood the prep/queue system. Thank goodness there are people that do! --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What discourages me is all the infighting over things that aren't really the purview of DYK. Honestly, I found it easier to get an article through GA than I did through DYK. That is pretty messed up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens when I nominate your current one. Maybe it won't be so bad. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I've opined after being pinged on the talk page, we will see. Personally, I don't worry about it. I'm pretty good at handling myself in a scrappy and pointless fight, and lets be honest, admin get an easier ride more often than not. That is part of what is broke around here. I'm more worried about the newish editors that aren't used to the place and get run off from Misplaced Pages altogether. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that the DYK process is daunting, even for experienced editors. And that the attitude of some of the regulars there can be kind of arrogant and aggressive - coming across as "why don't you know this stuff?" They think they are entitled to be brusque and demanding because it is making the project better; I don't agree that scaring off new editors makes the project better; but I haven't participated in the current discussion, which seems to recur every few months without much effect. I do think the recent trend of second- and third-guessing approvals and even pulling hooks out of the queue is a problem. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, your article is attracting a TON of notice even before it goes to DYK. I have never seen such a lot of interest and activity on the talk page of a brand new article. I think you have a winner here! Check out the draft hook here, see what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I trust your judgement on the hook. Since being paged there, I think I've ruffled a few feathers but I find it difficult to be less than honest there. It is reminding me why I unwatched the page to begin with. Whether that brings out the best or worst of me, it is too early to tell, but it forces me against the wall where I have no choice but to put things in plain English. I don't like what I see, not in the least. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and as for all the help. I've been very lucky at Misplaced Pages that way. I try not to ask for help too often, but when I do ask, a number of people have always jumped in and helped me out. I also find that really unusual articles like this attract attention because people want to learn a little more. Stone Soup really works on these transmundane topics. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. Thanks for the message. I added myself to the project with future prospects of creating and perhaps editing articles related to Pakistan as well as the fact that I had created articles in the past such as PIA Flight 544. That is the reason I have the template on, basically to show people I'm still interested, but no plans of editing until I'm given clearance.

That being mentioned I am planning on creating more articles in a few weeks and the sections that include Afghanistan and Pakistan, I plan on leaving empty with a {empty section}. I even avoid sections that make mention of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India or anything that falls within them. I also hope the arbcom is watching my contributions; especially article creations and hope that I'm earning my way to a topic-ban lift in the near future since I'm not here forever. As worm had put it something like "show as you can be a productive editor first".

I also wouldn't worry too much about the notices since participation is declining.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

• Nadirali, you don't want to do that. Even if you don't write about those countries specifically, you are talking about topics that cover those countries, thus it is a violation of your topic ban. At the very least, I strongly suggest you discuss this with Worm That Turned before proceeding. When I said you should avoid these topics like they were poison, I wasn't kidding. Even mentioning them here is borderline. I get the feeling you don't fully understand the terms of the topic ban, something BASC should have explained (and likely did). Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• No you misunderstood, I do understand the terms. For example I'm not supposed to edit Tajik people since Tajiks are native to both Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Whereas editing Dushanbe the capital of Tajikistan is safe since Tajikistan is not banned for me. Specifically, I was planing on creating an article about the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict like there's one called Israel-Iran proxy conflict. I was planning on leaving he sections on Afghanistan and Pakistan blank since the proxy conflict also spreads to those areas, but if you tell me that's part of the topic ban then I'll leave it till the ban's lifted. To be honest I think I'm better off staying away from political topics, weather I'm banned or not. I'd prefer to keep creating articles on other stuff and keep working on those. Once those are finished, then I'll see.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)