User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 36

Final decision
Could I know the final decision for this case considering the insult he thrown after your last comment, calling me a 'potato'? Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * He didn't call you a potato. He said arguing with you is the same as arguing with a potato, nothing gets done.  That isn't a personal attack all.  This is like the American expression "Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall".  And I commented there, but I'm not making any final decision, that isn't how ANI works, it isn't a court.  Plus, I'm about to walk out the door and go fishing with a very lovely and brilliant, single woman.  There are plenty of other admin to review the case.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fishing"? Is that what they call it nowadays? Oh my, I must really be getting old... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait! – There are "single women"?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I showed her your comment as a test, and she started laughing out loud, so she passes. Nothing but real fishing this time, she insists I get my "serial dating" phase over with before I can steal more than a quick kiss.  She passes that test as well.  She is also a physics freak, and about half country girl, half nerd, which pairs up with me. Newly single at 50 has been an adventure, and is finally not painful. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * She sounds like a proper sort of girl, and sensible too. Eric   Corbett  02:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As you know Dennis, I have been in your shoes (kind of) and out the other end, and I am optimistic that relationships at that age are better because by then you've been there and done that and just want things to work. Which (touch wood) they will. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't
You know better than to intentionally violate policy to prove a point. Also, please don't call other editors "jackass". Set an example. Chillum 19:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The point was well proven - there is a lynch mob in town. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I should think that "setting an example" would include "not stalking others' comments looking for violations" and generally not being a(n)...   Scr ★ pIron IV 19:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Has nobody got an article they want to improve? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Eric does.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see the pious Chillum couldn't resist a dig at you too. He was appointed by God himself you know!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * is correct that my unorthodox experiment was against policy and under almost any other circumstance, should be avoided, but since I've already explained it before this "warning", I just assume this is friendly advice, editor to editor, and not an official action. Yesterday, I was forced to ignore some rules and set an example of a different kind.  The issue isn't Eric, it is hypocrisy.  Was it risky?  Could an admin have blocked me for making a personal attack?  Unlikely, because I'm an admin, so I get to do things that less popular people can't.  That is the hypocrisy I was pointing out.  Again, this is the second time I've done this exact same thing, and both times the result was the same: nary a peep from anyone.  Sometimes it takes something this extreme to wake people up, to shake them up, so they finally see what is going on.  Gorman's activities border on stalking him, and a one month block for a comment that was 1/10th as abrasive as my own is definitive proof of systemic hypocrisy, even if done in what passes for good faith (blindly following the letter of the law rather than the intent).  While I won't succumb to hyperbole here, I believe Thoreau would approve of my meager but sincere efforts in this WikiBubble we live in.  That isn't bad company to be in.  We have got to stop this madness of playing civility police over such minor things.  Or we need to just start blocking everyone that does the same. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response. It was friendly advice. Frankly I think your point would make a lot more sense if you were under the same arbcom restriction as Eric, as it stands it is fairly normal for occasional outburst to be ignored. I would not take it as evidence of hypocrisy. You seem to insist on viewing this incident in a vacuum and compare it to actions of other users without a history. The fact is that Eric's civility in the past has been so bad that he came a hair width away from being banned outright. His current restrictions are a final attempt to allow him to continue and an alternative to outright banning him.


 * Your experiment failed to take into account the circumstances. And to be 100% clear you being an admin will not make you immune to blocks for personal attacks. I would never block an editor for an isolated incident unless it was particularly egregious but if you developed a pattern then that would be a whole different story. Your experiment showed a different result not due to hypocrisy but due to the fact that Eric has squandered the patience of the community while you still have it in abundance. Chillum 14:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct that no one would have blocked, but you have to admit that the fact that no one even mentioned it showed a preoccupation with Eric rather than the concept of civility itself. No experiment is perfect, but I still think there is enough to be gleaned that we each should be asking ourselves if this was really an objective and fair case.  I believe the last block you made of Eric, many showed up to argue and say nasty things and I was the first to try to bring calm and defend you as the duration was reasonable and your response was measured.  I'm not Eric's bodyguard, Eric is just a "canary in the mine" here due to his high productivity and inclination to push the boundaries of civility.  Ironically, he is actually delightful to work with on articles, as long ago I decided to ignore his reputation and get to know him (after he opposed me at RFA), and worked on three larger projects with him, two GAs and a FA/TFA.  But I'm not blinded to his shortcomings.  Anyway, that something is "Arb enforced" really shouldn't be as important as people are saying.  If something is incivil, it is incivil.  The Arb restrictions are designed to make it easier for admin to enforce a policy, with less red tape; they are NOT designed to cast away community consensus that we call "policy".  Arb doesn't make policy, although they can sometimes clarify it and make special sanctions.  This is why the current Arb case is ongoing.  We have too many people getting trigger happy, some are using AE as an excuse.  We need more civility, but we are fools if we think we will achieve it as the end of the block gun. Over-sanctioning leads to worse behavior, not better, and if our goal is to prevent disruption, we are supposed to use our best judgement and the least amount of force to do just that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I mentioned it. I did so the moment my attention was drawn to it. I don't think you are Eric's bodyguard, in fact I don't even think you have an unreasonable bias in this area. I do disagree with your interpretation and response though. Either way, I am happy to disagree with you anyday as you seem to understand that reasonable people can disagree reasonably. Chillum 19:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean "reasonable admins can disagree reasonably". (Chiefly because, both know they won't be performing any admin actions against one another, or even threatening to. When an admin blocks or threatens a reg user, there's seldom sufficient air in the room whereby the admin "disagrees reasonably" - more typically they get defensive, have no response, or give an absurd response, or respond with the classic "so take me to arbcom and desysop me" [i.e., "up yours!"].) IHTS (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Long time no see.

 * Looks delightful. When I saw the notification about "bomb" on my talk page, I was afraid it was from an admin regarding my discussion above.  Yours looks much more inviting :)  Thank you.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to see you around in a more sustained way Dennis. Sounds like you have met an ideal female friend and your back problems are being addressed in an intelligent way. Cool :) I support a rational legalisation of cannabis (Me and her were great friends back in the day ;)). In short, it sounds like things are getting better. I said they would, and in a shorter timeframe than you imagined. The timeframe is about right. Always here mate. Respect as always! Simon Irondome (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Legalization is definitely happening, which means I've been busy at work as well, as I design and sell UV lights to boost THC by 20-30 percent.  I don't care about recreational use, but it is refreshing to see medical use being taken serious and if they pushed it off Sched. 1, some real research could be done here.  I've now had two different doctors who approve of me using it for the back pain, which is better. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Calm and apolitical"
"Crats have generally been expected to, and have traditionally lived up to, the idea of being calm and apolitical"—that may be the ideal, but it's hardly been the practice. Take a closer look at this list; while many of the crats have indeed been the pleasant nonentities they're supposed to be, there have been some industrial-grade shit-stirrers and whackos among their number. – iridescent  17:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is true, but the expectation and what they are vetted for is still that they will be calm and apolitical, and they are the only class of extra bit user screened for that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Just FYI, Dennis, since you blocked the kindly welcomer on 21 June. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
 * You might need to ping someone at WP:SPI on the main page. Any CU can clear it up.  Assuming you are correct, that is certainly a lot of socks.  I hadn't thought about that aspect when I made the first block, as that is unusual.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not following. Do you mean I should post on the SPI talkpage, WT:SPI? Or is there an SPI for this fellow — if so, under what name? Bishonen &#124; talk 01:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
 * You don't have to assume I'm correct, you'll see I am if you follow my links. See him boasting about all his sleepers. Follow this fellow to Acroterion's page for instance, and look at the history of User talk:The Caledonian Sleeper. I've added a bit more at AN. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
 * No disrespect was meant, Bishonen, sorry if it came across that way. I only meant to say I didn't have time to follow all the links to see what you were referring to. I haven't been around at all the last few days, indulging myself with the company of a new friend.  Yes, on the WP:SPI page itself is a request for CU section, bottom area "Quick CheckUser requests".  Lots of people don't know it exists.  I only do because I clerked. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Hm. Why do I leave such scary Wikiloves? Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That man has a drinking problem. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He could have one, of course... looks violent somehow. Or he can see something only he can perceive.... Hafspajen (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Now this can't be wrong, now....

 * Trying to figure out what is in that thing. Looks like peaches in the bottom, and the colors are "unique" to my yankee eyes.  Being July in the Carolinas, however, I would take a chance and try it out.  Hot as the dickens here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll hazard a guess at canned orange or tangerine segments in Grand Marnier as a base, topped with whipped cream, topped with strawberry, vanilla and pistachio ice cream. (Grand Marnier is quite popular in restaurant desserts on the continent, as its slight bitterness cuts sweetness and means you can make things sickly-sugary without them tasting syrupy, and it's very cheap but tastes like it ought to be expensive.) – iridescent 16:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a knickerbocker glory. Canned peaches, maybe some pear and cherries (also from a tin), whipped and probably fake cream, raspberry ice-cream, pistachio ice-cream, and a chocolate wafer or something chocolatey, and raspberry syrup. There's probably some banana in there, and nuts., Grand Marnier would make it too posh. Sarah (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, it's definitely not a knickerbocker glory—one of their defining characteristics is being served in a tall champagne-flute shaped glass so all the layers are visible (google it). This is some kind of Mediterranean goop. – iridescent 17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell how tall that glass is; it's fat, but it's piled high too. The key thing for something to be a knickerbocker glory is that you need a special spoon to dig deep, and I think you'd need a special spoon for that. I expected to see a category on Commons, but I can only find File:Knickerbocker glory.jpg, which is definitely not one. Sarah (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly in the UK they were always served in a fluted glass. My mum used to insist on a knickerbocker glory every time we went on holiday but I've not seen them for years. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We had them every summer too, usually in places where it rained a lot, so holidays were spent in cafes eating fish and chips and knickerbocker glories, always waiting for the rain to stop. Sarah (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's hot where you live; guys. Hafspajen (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not too bad, average summer high in North Carolina is only 31C. In Abilene, Texas it was closer to 35C. The record there was 44C, and I remember lots of 40C days. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a custom sundae. C'mon now. North America1000 19:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC) →


 * Beware: Consumption of that thing is certain to result in an udderly profound episode of Breyer's remorse. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * [rimshot] Thanks folks, I'll be here all week! Please try the veal! Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ducks essay
Hi Dennis,

FYI, while Atsme is the primary author of the essay, the idea for the essay actually originated from a conversation between Sarah and myself, in response to concerns raised at ANI   regarding COI and the recent Wifione case.

The essay has unfortunately become the subject of prolonged battleground. It seems some editors have interpreted the essay as targeting them, but the original intention of the essay was regarding disruptive editing behavior, not specific editors. It has gone off in a somewhat different direction than originally intended. Please see this rough draft essay for originally intended scope. Since you seem to have unsuspectingly waded into all this, I thought this brief background might be helpful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the tips, and I received more on the talk page. Sometimes, an uneducated opinion (myself) is helpful, as I had no preconceived ideas about it when I read it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Meteorology, etc
Dennis, you have been here forever. I seem to recall running across a long-term vandal report about someone who kept adding copiuos amounts of meteorological data to articles. Would you have any memory of that? Maybe even be able to point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance - I'm just pinging your memory, not trying to keep you from important real world matters :-)  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't ring a bell at this moment, but I bet I know someone who is perfect to ask: our newly minted admin, who specializes in this exact field of editing and has for over 7 years. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will swing by there and ask. I appreciate the direction!  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman
I agree with a week and would disagree with a longer block. I only favor indeffing a user if he is clearly not here for the encyclopedia rather than hostile, uncivil, and inflammatory. This editor is clearly here to edit about a philosopher, which is good, but is intolerant of all other editors. If he comes off block and continues to be hostile and intolerant, an indef is appropriate. Anyone who is trying, as obnoxiously as he can, to improve the encyclopedia deserves a second chance. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I was obviously on the fence about it. His particular brand of POV pushing is what troubles me most, the whole "coal industry" claims, which are disruptive.  In the end, I went the safe direction and I don't think anyone can argue that a week was too strong.  I can't say that I'm hopeful for the future, however.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User Adilswati misuse of talk pages and on/off wiki collabration with Pashtun nationalists to edit war over language map
Reported user is edit warring on diffrent articles of province Khyber pakhtunkhwa and want to place a map showing pashto even in distrcits where other languages are spoken. Please see his contributions. He is also inviting other pashtun nationalist users Number one User: Tigerkhan007  and writing openly against Punjabi and Hindkos. He said also invite friends to fight punjabiz. Number 2 User: Usman khan being instructed in Pashto to use diffrent IPs mobile phones even girl friends mobile internet to thrash Punjabiz and sharing of face book account to disscuss stratergy privatly. Number 3 User Adjutor101 On his talk page he is using offensive wording like Tusi / tuso for Punjabi / Hindko people see Number 4 on User Jasimkhanum10 he advises "baghair login la editing kawa" which means do editing with out log in. bcoz Jasimkhanum was Topic ban for three months, Intrestingly he followed instructions and got ban for socking for one week. see  Dirty Abuses in pashto against Hindko / Punjabiz. You can consult pashtun speaker for translations and read his Pashto contributions all over. I have just given few examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.246.29 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is something that really needs to go to WP:ANI. I'm short on time here for starters, and these types of problems are best handled by the community, rather than myself, who is not as familiar with the subject matter.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did that all go?
Ice Cream (I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream) -Here.- Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC) -
 * Sigmabot archives aggressively. I haven't been around much the last couple of weeks.  I've had some spare time, but I had to decide to either spend it here, or with my attractive and highly huggable girlfriend.  She always wins that race.  I'm still knee deep in divorce paperwork, lawyers, deeds, titles and the like, so it is probably for the best that I don't hang out too much, ice cream or no.  Nothing I can't handle, but handling it makes me irritable. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. Then I won't disturb you. Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it's alright. Just got off the phone with my other lawyer, that is always fun.  Another two hours at the office, then I go to her house to eat pork ribs and corn on the cob.  It's probably a good idea for me to not do anything really important here on my lawyer days. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, have fun. Hafspajen (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Dennis: If you start to get bored on Wikipedia, you can keep your chops up by studying The Tao of Carl. Some questionable words of advice, possibly ill-advised, so take with a grain of salt accordingly, if necessary. North America1000 12:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Another second opinion?
Hello, and good day, Mr Dennis Brown. This is concerning the wiki page of chess player Vishwanathan Anand. It all started in my bid to improve what was not a great wiki page for an all time great chess player. There is no an ongoing edit war despite the fact that I user proper citations from the highest authorities in the chess world to back up my edits. Those arguing against my opinion seem to be doing so because of a strong bias against the player, rather than any facts or citations. Thanks, I hope you get involved as I feel very strongly about the matter. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have been rather active reverting people, and two admin have reverted you already. You might take a look at WP:BRD, which will explain how we edit here.  To get your ideas incorporated into the article, you need to build a consensus on the talk page, in a calm, well reasoned and patient manner.  You really have to start there, by trying that first.  This is the same way I get changes made to any article I work on, so the playing field is pretty level here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would submit that feeling "very strong about the matter" is an emotion that you should try to set aside when editing Wikipedia, . If instead, you feel strongly that you can help, in a collaborative fashion, to expand and improve a neutral encyclopedia, then please conduct yourself in that fashion. Do not assume without really solid evidence that other editors have a "bias" against this chess player. And please be sure that you do not have a bias in favor. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good advice. I tread very carefully (or not at all) in areas where I have a strong emotional connection, be it politics, religion, etc.  It is all too easy for the best of us to project our own flaws onto others, such as bias or POV issues, when in fact they are acting in good faith.  Neutrality is required, and that means Wikipedia is best served if we DON'T edit articles where personal feelings are too strong. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

On Liz's talk...
you said...Three female admin came from the Editor of the Week program there (Anna Frodesiak, Anne Delong and MelanieN),... What is so funny about that comment is that there are actually FOUR female Admins who were EotW recepients. Liz was a recipient in April of this year. You do see the humor in that, don't you? . <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about humor, but that is good I suppose. I had originally nominated Liz for EotW but withdrew it soon afterwards.  It does show that the EotW program, and by extension WER, is doing more to get female admin than any of the other efforts.  All you have to do is find them.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound like a party pooper, but has actually ever identified themselves to any of the genders? The user name is a paronomasia.  The joke may be on us :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Identify? Oh, I identify as female. In fact, I'm identified as female by everyone around me. However, at 6am, before coffee, I might be mistaken for a surly truck driver. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too! Although I do look the part more than Anna! ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I kept myself in college in Berlin by driving 22-wheel rigs all over Europe at night and weekends. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I take strong exception to the way this conversation is going. I think I can speak for all surly truck drivers on the English Wikipedia! User:SurlyTruckDriver
 * Keep on Truckin'... North America1000 10:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion?
Hi Dennis, sorry for this direct approach but I recall you being very constructive in a recent automotive manner, involving me adding "SAFETY RECALL" information to Australian vehicles. By concensus, that information was removed. As I said, you were very constructive and gave reasons for supporting the removal. I am just wondering if you can give a second opinion on List of Formula One safety cars. It is a referenced list that I did not solely put together. Other editors had done so in the Safety Car article, but then a "gang" of F1 project users opposed to it. As a result, for the sake of not losing that information, I decided to make the above stand-alone list. Except that there's been opposition again by the same gang, on grounds that I find weak.

At a minimum, what's the difference between List of Formula One safety cars or something like List of Holden vehicles or List of Pontiac vehicles or List of Harley-Davidson motorcycles etc? One impartial reviewer (that I do not know) has weighed in supporting the keeping of List of Formula One safety cars.

What is your take on it? Feel free to refer it to someone else... or kindly tell this newbie how to get independent moderator/administrator involved. One of the "gang leaders" has gone as far as to nominate the list for speedy deletion, just to show how heavy handed they have been. I think Roche has summarised the position well if you want to take a shortcut. Me and others are just arguing. Cheers CtrlXctrlV (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that coming here makes it impossible for me to participate, as my doing so would look like you canvassed me. It is a tricky situation.  I probably would not have found the AFD by myself anyway, but I would have voted to keep if I did.  To remove any question of impropriety, I'm kind of forced to stay out.  I would say that the criteria isn't indiscriminate and is a reasonable classification for creating a list.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your frankness and need to abstain (plus limited time, reading other things on here... best of luck!). Just one further question if I may - is there a mechanism by which to invite other mod/admin users to encourage a fair discussion? The Talk page is monopolized by me and the larger number of usual other suspects... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have since been made aware and warned about "canvassing" (aside from an overzeaous but since withdrawn "vandalism" warning) in the above deletion discussion. I was not aware of that concept till today. And since I have nothing to hide I won't bother editing my original post here. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to hide, this is how we all learn. I didn't think you were intentionally trying to break any rules.  The key is to post notices in neutral places, in neutral ways, like "there is a discussion at (link) this project might be interested in" at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject.  You have to go out of your way to insure you don't give any impression of your opinion in that posting.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 15:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I
Dennis, you've always been fair with me in the past. I know what the report the other editor filed looks like on the surface. But when you look underneath that surface, there's more there, way more, and it's not what you think it is. I ask that you take a moment and look through his contribution list since 8/20 and note that where I've been, he's been. I go to an article, talk page, noticebaord, and suddenly, he shows up. It started then with him going after (with whom he has an interesting past along the same lines). Then he set his sights on me. After that, he had someone new to go after, and he hasn't stopped. Edit warring, taunts, harassment, you name it, he's been doing it. And this is not the first time this editor has been involved in what he's been trying with me. Look deep into his block history, particularly last year, and you will get a good picture of what he is capable of doing and the lengths to which he will go. is very familiar with Blue Salix. I will get some diffs together as I can today as I am pretty swamped - I didn't want your comments at the AN/I to appear ignored, hence my note to you here. In the meantime, however, if you have the desire to look further into what's really going on, I'd appreciate it. Thank you,-- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, under no circumstances do I think anyone is an angel here, but I have to look at what I'm dealt. You can avoid much of the problem by simply staying away from his talk page, something you already know.  I get it that he frustrates you, you still have to learn to walk away.  I'm not taking sides, just stating the fact if someone asks you to stay away, you should stay away, and certainly not taunt them to take you to ANI.  You all add much to Wikipedia, but only when you avoid each other, so my advice is for you all to avoid each other, and avoid each other so perfectly that if someone is bumping into someone else, it is easy to see who is doing the bumping.  Right now, it looks like you, thus the warning. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But, it's not me. Like I said, look at his editing history for the last 6 days.  HE inserts himself into everything I do, everywhere I go.  Ask Cwobeel what he's like.  Ask Bishonen.  He is hounding and harassing, plain and simple.  I admit I told him to file a report, but that was because I knew that if I filed a harassment report that on him, I would be mocked, my block log would be brought up, sharks would circle, the report would be ignored, my Aspergers would be used against me (as it always is), and then he would get what he wants: for me to look like a paranoid idiot who is a troublemaker.  This way, an admin paid attention and now an admin can look into this instead of ignoring me (like usually happens).  Please, I'm begging you, look into him and the last six days as well as his block past.  He's about playing games and messing with people. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to the AN/I report in great detail. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , you know I hold no grudge against you, but I have to be honest and just say that this is one of those instances you are simply wrong. Like I said, no one is innocent here, but you're the one pushing it past the threshold.  I could have easily just blocked you at ANI and it would have stuck, unquestionably.  If anything, my direct statement/warning probably prevented someone else from just blocking you outright.  Being the fool I am, I'm hoping you will take a day off, look at the discussion closer and realize that no one else's behavior excuses your own.  I'm at the limit here, if you push the boundaries, you will leave me no choice.  Someone, maybe me, will be forced to use an extended block, and I really don't want to see that.  Now please go ignore other people's activities and just do some editing.  That is what we are all here to do, after all.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I know you to be fair and yes, I know you hold no grudge against me. I will be honest and say that I believe it is you and the admin who closed the AN/I to be wrong. Really wrong.  If Blue Salix stops hounding and harassing me I will be pleasantly surprised.  And with that, I will just repost what I put and the closing admin's talk page:


 * "I called him a prick and I posted on his talk page after he told me not to. That's it.  He follows me everywhere, implies I'm mentally ill, has an extensive history of doing the same shit he's been doing to me, was indeffed for it previously, but I am acting poorly?  Wow.  And thanks for the kind words ("sick to death of...you").  Personally, I'm sick to death of admins letting game-players get away with the crap they do.  Like you just did with the one who filed the AN/I.  I'm also sick to death of trying to just edit in peace and being hounded by editors like him.  But who cares, right?  You and other admins are sick to death of me, so I deserve what I get.  I may be slow on the uptake when it comes to pragmatics/social cues, but I heard that message loud and clear."


 * Ignoring him is impossible when he follows me everywhere I go. Like I said, if that stops, I will be surprised.  Given his history and the depths to which he is known and documented as going to in order to needle editors he picks and chooses as his targets, I don't expect it to happen.  If I'm accused of being non-AGF-ish for saying that, so be it.  I'm seeing some very disturbing behavior with that editor, obviously no one else cares to see it or do anything about it.  But so what?  We're all just volunteers thanklessly giving up our time for something that will benefit us in no way whatsoever in the real world or the eternal scheme of things.  Why not continue to be stalked and needled by another one of those volunteers and then get raked over the coals for pointing it out?  Sounds like fun.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  20:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Still hounding, he's not going to stop . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi - there is a very precise definition of hounding. When you start a discussion about me, and I choose to being participating in that discussion about me, that is not "hounding." This has been explained to you by multiple editors in patient, and increasingly less patient, tones. In the last week you have been active on more than 50 articles. Of those I happen to also be active on three (all of which happen to be prominent news items that are attracting many editors). You have been repeatedly told this is not evidence of "following [you] everyone [you] go" and yet you continue to make this accusation against both myself and other editors who share a similarly tangential interaction pattern. It has gone from tiresome to disruptive to, frankly, malicious. BlueSalix (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Brunch foods
Hi Dennis: check out List of brunch foods and help to improve it if you're interested, at the very least as a respite from all that admin work you do. Also, consider joining WP:TAFI, which has undergone some recent changes, such as focusing on only one article a week (instead of several) in efforts to improve collaboration. North America1000 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks much more interesting than what I have been working on. I've been debating some new content work, and this might fit the bill.  Being an admin who walks into/is dragged into the politics around here...sucks.  By now, you know some of the pitfalls, I'm sure. I'm no expert on brunch, although I have been known to enjoy the occasional Bloody Mary or mimosa.  I assume this is going to vary wildly by country as well, but that is a problem that can be dealt with as it grows, even splitting off into countries if needed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lately, my focus is more on content, with admin stuff focused on matters regarding deletion and patrolling (e.g. AfD, speedy candidates, blocks), which are also highly content-related. I appreciate your objective mindset when dealing with all of the behavioral-related problems that occur on the wiki. I can see how this type of work can be a drain. North America1000 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Govt. Gandhi Memorial Science College
Hi Dennis: I was perusing AfD and noticed your recent nomination here. I have created a new article at Govt. Gandhi Memorial Science College, so it's no longer a red link. Perhaps a merge may be in order? Cheers, North America1000 15:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That whole discussion was confusing to me, really it should have been a delete but I could see that wasn't going to happen. They really weren't reading the policy correct, but I don't have time for a battle.  A redirect does make more sense, since there is no policy that regulates playing fields other than GNG, in spite of their claims.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the notability guideline at WP:NCRIC is based upon sportspeople, rather than sports grounds. North America1000 15:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added merge tags to both articles, to merge Gandhi Memorial Science College Ground → Govt. Gandhi Memorial Science College. North America1000 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and that sounds like a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, you broke the indentation! I usually wait a week before performing merges after tagging, to allow time for people to potentially discuss it if they want to. North America1000 15:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, net is down, on phone. Fun. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

You started here around the same time I did back in 2006 and I have always respected your judgement. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 00:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that means a lot. All too often I may say things the wrong way, but I have appreciated your willingness to listen and give the benefit of the doubt, as well as listen with an open mind even when you disagree.  As for this event, not many people would go digging into their archives, no less take the time to leave a comment.  That speaks volumes as to your character.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just hope I did not discourage you from giving me further advice. I enjoy a spirited debate and I know that can seem confrontational sometimes. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 00:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not deterred at all, and the same holds true for you. I'm certainly not above friendly advice from time to time.  As for spirited debates, I've always said it takes some heat to dig out all the possibilities, so I'm never one to shy away from a spirited, but polite, debate.  Too many cross the line around here, turning what could be a great debate into a mud slinging event, but I'm comfortable saying neither of us fall into that catagory.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Request
(moved from above)

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

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

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

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


 * You probably need to go to WP:AFC to build the article. As a side note, WP:Teahouse is the best place to go for general help and answers.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

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

This reminds me of the times I used to go down to Steamer's, a pub on the coast near Sunset Beach, North Carolina and shuck oysters by the bucketload, along with multiple mugs of cold beer. They would put them on sale for a quarter each (this was the 90s) and we would spend several dollars getting drunk and full. I will try to find some time later, when my brain gets up to speed. I've been avoiding the place when I'm on Vicodin (another minor but invasive surgery, nothing of note), and I'm hoping today will be good enough I can avoid taking it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We used to cross Mad Inlet and hang out on Bird Island. No authorities...we did whatever we wanted. I tried to go at every opportunity I could and introduced a good number of people to this untouched beach. A bit sad that it is now connected because the inlet filled in. I left my thoughts and signed the Kindred Spirit several times...umm, 23 years ago now. Clams are better roasted than steamed and we dug them there.


 * Hanging out a a pub shucking and eating oysters and drinking beer. A private beach island, eating roasted, freshly dug clams. Living the dream. North America1000 18:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, until this divorce is over, I'm drinking Kool-Aid out of a Flintstone's glass, eating peanut butter and just saying "shucks". I'm saving where I can, planning a decent vacation once this all over, say 8 or 9 months time.  The beach is just 4 hours away, so odds are good I'll land there, ready for a couple of weeks R&R.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, be sure to add in some time to smell the roses. Check out List of steamed foods now. Still growing. Here's a tacky joke – Q. Why are divorces so expensive? A. Because they're worth it. North America1000 20:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Mass_killings_in_capitalist_regimes
I am a little surprised at this whole issue concerning this article. I recently made a defense of it on its talk page which was deleted, and does not seem to be recoverable. I would like to begin the process of appealing its deletion, and prevention of recreation. It is a perfectly notable, verifiable, neutral, non-fringe article. I would say that its deletion stands in need of questioning and justification. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "It was deleted before" is not a valid answer to the above question. If you delete a whole entire article and it's very simple why you deleted it, you should be able to state very simply why you deleted it. Now try again, this time without avoiding the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.241.86.79 (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My deletion was purely procedural, it has gone to AFD twice and been deleted many times for being recreated. Essentially, we admin try to protect the decision of the community, not our own.  The best place to go is WP:REFUND and ask for a copy to be "userfied", ie: moved to your user space.  Then it can undergo review after being brought up to standards for WP:BLP and the like, and if it is likely to survive an AFD, an admin can move into mainspace under the original name.  This is standard operating procedure for an article that has been community deleted at AFD.  We can't disregard the community's decision at AFD....if they delete, we must delete, but we can accommodate the opportunity to rehabilitate the article, starting with REFUND, if a valid argument is given.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason is here. The community voted to delete it.  The community voted that no article may just be recreated after it is deleted.  The community decided admin shall be the ones to enforce the policies.  I'm an admin, I saw it, I followed the wishes of the very community that picked me to serve as admin.  My job wasn't to decide if it should be deleted (the community did that).  My job was interpret that this was exactly the situation covered by the G4 criteria I linked, and use the tools to do the wishes of the greater community, as their proxy.  It is that simple.  You might do better to calm down and stop throwing a tantrum or you will just end up blocked.  You have no Rights here, you aren't special, you are no different than any other editor.  As I've said above, WP:REFUND is the place to go if you want it reviewed.  If that isn't good enough, then you need to file a complaint at WP:ANI and see how far that gets you.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Where can the article's supporters discuss the matter with the community again? I'd like to have a constructive discussion with it. I'm sorry if you're annoyed at the drama, but I want to do what I can to prove its validity to the community. I just don't know what page to discuss on. I opened the topic on the talk page of the most recently-deleted one, but I don't know if it's the right place. Thanks in advance. Socialistguy (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I keep saying WP:REFUND but no one seems to be listening, that is what is tiring. That is the venue, period, no other exists.  It is fairly informal.  Restoring a page after multiple deletions isn't something that the community just votes on, it requires discussion and weighing of policy, as an admin has to be the one to pull the trigger here, so there is some consensus to gauge and policy to read.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dennis. I will bring the issue to WP:REFUND. I realize that you were acting in good faith, as a routine matter. However, it was very unfortunate. I only brought the matter to you based on the boilerplate language that recommends approaching the person deleting it first. If there is anything you can do to facilitate the process, I would greatly appreciate it. Perhaps there are some non-substantial changes to be made (title, wording, etcetera) that would make it more clearly appropriate. It is a matter that I am supporting in good faith. I really believe that when considered fair-mindedly, it will prevail. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What little I gleaned from the context: Only use 1st rate sources.  If you can't find a top notch source, don't put it in the article.  Don't make it a personal axe to grind with any economic system, stick to the dry facts.  Expect others will disagree in good faith, which is what the talk page is for.  These types of articles will always create a dust up, so you are better off starting with material that is the most obvious, best sourced info that everyone can agree on.  THEN build from there.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. I will store the original in my Ronco Barstar Vault, for safe keeping.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya
Sorry to bother you, you can always pass my request to another admin if you are too busy. I have recently been tracking inaccuracies in the Eastern Europe articles (a Herculean task). I recently brought the problems with Yulia Tymoshenko to your attention and you acted swiftly. In the 'Murder, investigation and trial' section of the article Anna Politkovskaya, one can read "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin. In my opinion, this kind of conspiracy theory, sinister in a comical way, is damaging for the credibility of Wikipedia. I have tried to erase it, only to be promptly reverted. If you agree with me, please see what you can do. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that she was killed on Putin's birthday is emphasized by the source. Hell, it's in the title of the article. That Politkovskaya was assassinated is not exactly controversial. That the Russian government had something to do with it is also not a "conspiracy theory" but the view taken by a very significant (majority?) number of reliable sources.
 * User:Againstdisinformation (speaking of irony...) is hoping for some ignorance here to help him with the POV pushing. When journalists get killed in "normal" countries and somebody blames the government, yeah, a lot of times those are "conspiracy theories". But there's plenty of countries where government being involved in the murder of uncomfortable journalists is not "conspiracy" but unfortunately the way it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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


 * I'm familiar enough with Volunteer Marek. We sometimes disagree, but my observations have been that he acts in good faith.  This doesn't mean he is correct here nor does it mean he is wrong, just that behavior isn't really on the table without substantiation.  I would also note that he hasn't participated in this article or talk page, so his alleged biases aren't really at issue.  As for the content itself, that is outside the realm of what admin do.  If I entered that area, I would be doing so as an editor, not admin, and it is outside my area of expertise.  Admin don't decide content, thankfully.  What I suggest is continuing the discussion on the talk page, perhaps start a neutrally worded poll and find which way the consensus winds blow.  I would ask VM to join in if he feels he has something to contribute. This is all part and parcel of WP:BRD.  Too many admins (myself included at times) get involved too early in the discussion process and make a problem worse, so I think it best to stay out of the way of the people discussing for now.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Humour or not?
I just happened to glance thru this page, and wanted to know your thought on this rant; as you were the blocking admin: User talk:Kingshowman. Seems kind of childlike to me.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I had already seen that. Book of Mark I think, but I haven't read the bible in a few decades. It would be easy to draw all kinds of conclusions from his posting that particular passage but I don't want to jump to conclusions.  Childlike is one possibility, but there are others. A failed attempt at humor is another.  I can think of several more.  Once people start preaching from the pulpit (and in this case, quite literally), I tend to just pull back to the middle of the crowd and see what happens next.  No need to feed the desire for attention.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. :). I'm just keeping an eye on the user for a while to ensure that there is no more battling around here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Sniff, Sniff!

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


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

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better
Hello!

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

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

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

More or less as I indicated at AN ...

 * Thanks John. If I was feeling a bit better, I would have moved myself, but I'm under the weather and not up for a battle.  No matter what is done, there exists a possibility of a fight afterwards.  Normally, I'm up for it, just not this week.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Poetry in the early 21st century
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Poetry in the early 21st century. 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. MusicAngels (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman
You indefinitely blocked Kingshowman. I'm curious what you do or don't do after indef blocking. (That user was active at Donald Trump. Isn't it logical that s/he might be mad as a result of the block? And use alternate ids at Talk:Donald Trump to carry on with name-calling, etc.? If nothing is done re that, then I sincerely don't get it - what is the point of blocking at all? It's very confusing can you explain?) IHTS (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A perfect block of a first class stereotype of one who is WP:NOTHERE. (I wonder what is doing here?) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, Kudpung. (I have no beef with the block, it probably was perfectly earned and executed. But there is illogic present over blocking, when there is no followup to what am supposing is easily anticipated user response - resorting to alternate usernames.) So I wonder what you are doing here? IHTS (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , as long as you're here, why don't you do something useful, like go to Talk:Donald Trump and block the editor calling others racists, neo-nazis, etc., and remove those posts? (Instead of attempting to pick at me?) IHTS (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Admin GB fan has redacted those posts. (But what about the next barrage?) IHTS (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking, Dennis, is that shouldn't the blocking admin be ready & engaged, to open an immediate SPI after such a block/user? I mean not to do so, gets results like on Talk:Donald Trump. (The block ends up like wounding a grizzly then packing away your gear and pulling out, while other campers are unawares cooking pork & beans & setting up tents.) IHTS (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Perfectly legit question, and this is easy to deal with if the editor focused only on one article, or to a lesser degree, one group of articles. If they come back as an IP doing the same edits, very often a different user will pop on my talk page or the active ANI and say "he is back editing as an IP at (article/talk name)", someone verifies and blocks the IP.  If they do it again with rotating IPs, you protect the page.  If they start using named accounts and edit, you block as a sock, if they do it more than twice, then an SPI case can be opened only because it is obvious they are going to continue and you want to create a history for future cases.  Most sock cases don't get SPI cases because they are single instances...someone is blocked, they think they can sock, they get busted, their block is extended (except for indefs, of course), so they stop.  Most indef users don't sock immediately, they wait until the heat dies down.  A minority probably never come back at all.  Some never sock and later on try to get unblocked via the normal processes.  Each case is different and as admin, we have to react to problems, we can't do things preemptively most of the time.  If you think someone is socking via IP, just ask the blocking admin.  If it is me, I'll always take a look.  On the Donald Trump page, for instance, I just semi-protected it for two weeks.  If that isn't enough, I can do other things. I tend to baby sit my blocks, all someone has to do is ask for more action on my talk page when it relates to someone I blocked.  Many (but not all) admin do the same.  As for SPI, it is a really slow process and is best for long term problems.  Had I took it there, it would take 1 to 2 weeks to get action. From the time I saw your message until the time I protected the page, left a note on his talk page, and replied here....closer to 10 minutes. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dennis, for that treatise. (It seems like a candidate for flowcharting!) Thx also for the page-protect. Ok, IHTS (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A flowchart is an apt description. I was thinking it was long after I posted, but there is some thought process to it, which is why pinging the original admin is usually the best first step.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames for cash
Hi Dennis: What is the scope of User talk:Dennis Brown/Nicknames for cash going to be? North America1000 00:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * List of alternative names for currency is probably the best title and scope I can think of. I'll bet you 5 quid that almost all countries probably have their own nicknames for many of the denominations, many that can be sourced. Having those sourced and linked to the other meanings of the word seems useful.  A very international list.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh duh, I get it now. Nicknames for currencies. North America1000 00:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I found Slang terms for money, which I previously was unaware of. North America1000 00:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What we are working on is a pure list, which is a bit different. We already have more sources.  Cross linking would be good, but I'm estimating we will have hundreds on entries from many countries, without the prose.  If they merge, they merge, but I think our style, the list, is the best way to accomplish it, regardless.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kewl. North America1000 01:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Global user pages & development
(forking from AN)

Hi,

You seem to have some different ideas about how global user pages happened so I thought I'd clear those up :)

The original request for them was filed back in 2008 (7 years ago!) and it was a featured proposal in the first strategy process. I had already written some code to auto-transclude mediawiki.org's Public domain help pages so they didn't have to copy them over manually based on the ForeignFileRepo concept in MediaWiki (aka Wikimedia Commons). Jack Phoenix then took my code and converted it to work for user pages, and GlobalUserPage was born. I mainly cleaned it up in my free time and made sure it was acceptable for Wikimedia's performance and security requirements. I didn't really spend any of my work time on it, except when it happened to overlap with deployment windows (which are fixed to pacific time). In fact, most of the people involved were volunteers working in their free time to get this deployed. AFAIK no one at the WMF made decisions about how it would operate except for agreeing with the code that was already written (c.f. ;-)).

We're looking to expand this system in the future to any generic namespace (centralized help pages, centralized templates, etc.), so if you have any opinions/suggestions about that, I think your input would be helpful.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think you know I wasn't picking on you personally. I know stuff takes years to get to "market" here, even SUL took infinitely long and that looks fairly easy on the surface.  My question to you would be, who authorizes this?  Since this covers ALL Wikis, this has to pass through WMF at some point, does it not?  Where does the decision making happen?  I can't believe it is only on Meta, so it must be somewhere else.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * T72576 Keegan (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request feedback
At WT:WER you recently wrote: "most admin don't mind you bringing up an action at WP:AN if you do so calmly and in good faith. If you start to hyperventilate and act freaky about it..." Thank you for your comment. I respect your opinion. May I respectfully ask for your feedback on this post User talk:Ricky81682 in terms of the levels of calm, good faith, hyperventilation, and freakiness? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hugh, your request was pretty long winded, but more importantly, Ricky's reply was calm, measured and used diffs, so I can't fault his demeanor nor civility. I'm not taking sides on the sanctions (and I haven't read everything involved, so not going to offer an opinion), but I will note that I think he might be correct in quoting WP:BLUDGEON (an essay I wrote, btw, but I digress...).  You need to just take some time off or whatever.  You have been protesting and protesting and no one agrees with you.  At some point, you have to simply accept that this is just how it is, fair or not.  There is no justice at Wikipedia, just solutions.  To continue to protest over and over is indeed bludgeoning, and that itself is covered by WP:TE.  Maybe it is just time to drop the stick and live with the consequences, wait 6 months, then ask for the ban to be lifted at WP:AN be other parties.  Step one would be to consider the RFC he names, and your participation, and what you could have done better.  That will be needed in 6 months.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of alternative names for currency for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of alternative names for currency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of alternative names for currency until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Rcsprinter123    (relate)  @ 16:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion?
Hi Dennis. Does this editor seem familiar, especially in light of WP:VPP. If yes, then it's my turn to block. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this edit kind of gave me what I needed. Off he goes. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed all the fun. I was out installing a window pane in a 100 year old house, on a 12 foot ladder, in a storm, and just for fun, 6 foot from the power lines.  But looks like you had good hunting.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes, sounds like the preamble of an old superhero comic book: how meek Dennis Brown was supercharged by a lightning and thus became Adminman! Favonian (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but did you indeed miss out on all the fun, Dennis? I assure you there is plenty more fun to be had! Cheers, old friend! 70.199.69.23 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

CM
Hi Dennis, re: your close at AN/I, CM has not said that he'll comply with the terms of use, and in fact is still not complying with it. I'd appreciate it if you would allow the thread to be closed by someone uninvolved so that the consensus of the discussion is summed up. Sarah (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seemed pretty obvious, but I've reverted. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. Without a clear summary of the consensus, the issue is likely to crop up again. I'm sorry if it seems as though I'm sticking to the rules for the sake of the rules. That isn't what's happening here. Sarah (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I was involved enough in the discussion that I wouldn't have closed if I thought there was any contention about it but it seemed to have just been a petered out thread with no one actually asking for sanctions and CorpM agreeing to radically modify what he was doing. I don't have a problem reverting if there is any contention in cases like this.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi
Winkelvi has been warned by several administrators, including yourself, about some of his problematic behavior, such as following editors around, posting on editors' talk pages when asked not to, and generally seeking conflict. I've had issues with this editor over the past month or so, and today he edited an article, St. Paul's School, for the first time, even though I've been editing it for a couple weeks. In a nutshell, I thought the article contained a lot of content that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, so I sought feedback from the WikiProject Schools coordinators. Tedder, a coordinator and an admin, reviewed the article fully and provided detailed feedback on what content did and did not belong. I agreed with all of it and edited the article accordingly today with this edit. Winkelvi immediately reverted all of it and then issued a "disruptive editing" warning on my talk page. I restored the changes in the article and now he is seeking support for an editor he believes will side with him on this matter. This talk page thread titled "Other discussions" at the St. Paul's article fully explains the edits I made. I don't want any problems. I simply wanted to improve the article; that's why I sought the help of the coordinators/admins who oversee the school articles before I removed any of the content. I was excited to improve the article. A lot of the non-encylopedic content was likely added by St. Paul's students, alumni and faculty, etc., and was essentially original research anyway with no sources for a lot of it. I informed Tedder about my edits and thanked him for his guidance. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Lootbrewed is forum shopping in several locations. If you have an interest in the editing of St. Paul's School please come to the talk page. There are problems with User:Winkelvi's behavior; he may have noticed User:Lootbrewed was engaged in editing disputes there and jumped in. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw all this earlier. I'm uninvolved in any of it, just watching how it plays out, hoping that an admin isn't required but on standby.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fred, I am not at all looking to influence anyone about the St. Paul's content. I wrote to Dennis about a particular editor's behavior. I wrote to Tedder, in reply to what he wrote me, to thank him for his help after I made the changes and let him know where things stood. With regard to the article content, I want it to be handled in whatever way is appropriate. That is precisely why I first sought the help and input from the coordinator of the school articles, long before removing any content. And the fact that I did so was posted on the article talk page. I simply wanted to know if I was right or wrong about the content being non-encylopedic. If I had been told the content was fine, I wouldn't have removed a thing and would have moved on. So, no, I'm not trying influence anyone about that article. I want things done correctly. Dennis or anyone else is free to look at the content I attempted to remove and decide for themselves. I thought the coordinator of those specialized articles would know as well as anyone. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, I just told the coordinator, Tedder, that I will not edit the St. Paul's School article again. No one asked me to do that, but I think it will give the talk page efforts to improve the article the best chance for success. Lootbrewed (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Michael Biggins
Dennis you sound reasonable. I and a large group of very old timer internet broadcasters have been watching that page get vandalized time and time again and have restored it time and time again. The people doing the so called editing are not 'editors' but people who have a hatred of Michael Biggins or his Blackout character (which is his legal name as far as I understand) because of his listi8ng as the first internet prank calling streaming broadcaster. Since the articles inception, many users besides myself have kept watch over it because we simply enjoy his work and he once addressed Wikipedia in one of his shows and asked for the help. I am not him. I am not a 'fan boy'. I have grandchildren. He had an account HattedOne where he came into the talk page years ago and was extremely polite. I don't know if he has used it since. I am reverting edits and I will work on shortening and cleaning things up but I will not tolerate reddit type teenagers who just hate the man and don't want him on Wikipedia because they think it's a status war. This has been gone over many times. There are plenty of offline and online magazine, interviews, tv appearances, guest spots, and encyclopedic references as you say. More so than many articles on here that don't get touched and shouldn't even be here. I will clean it up and restore the references properly and remove promotional sounding text. I take no issue with that. I do not intend to write promotional sounding text, and have fixed plenty before that were written by 'super fans' as you call them. What is happening right now, is an all out attack because he made some nasty references towards wikipedia editors and reddit editors on his live show thathe is doing on periscope, so that is what you are seeing. The people who ripped up a very well written, sourced, and referenced article aren't out to improve anything. They are out to win at the delete game. They will not be successful. Thank you for your message. You sound like a reasonable person and not one of these brat pack vandals. ManofThoth (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ManOfThoth


 * Actually, I reverted you . You are just wrong here.  I started earlier in the article history by removing the most obvious problems.  Others kept carving away.  Wikipedia stance is that it is better to have a small article that is well sourced than a huge article that is not verified at all.  The "vandals" you speak about are,  and myself.  Drmies is an admin with over 100,000 edits, a ton of DYK pips and coincidentally is a university professor.  Not your typical vandal.  Sitush is an accomplished editor here with 3x the number of edits that I have, and an eye for sources and neutrality.  A bit more gruff than some, but he is almost always right on stuff like this.  Me, I'm just another schmuck admin with acceptable skills, but I know WP:RS when I see it, and I didn't see it.  In a nutshell, this article is about a living person, and once unsourced info is removed, the burden is on YOU to demonstrate why it should be included on the talk page.  As you have seen, edit warring will not only get you blocked, but it doesn't even get your preferred version of the article preserved.  I suggest reading WP:BRD and WP:BLP, and don't say this to be flippant, but to help you understand why you were blocked, and to help you prevent getting blocked in the future.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ManofThoth, Dennis Brown is much more reasonable than most people. The article was not, I'm afraid, well referenced or neutral, and the deletion process is not a game. You've heard it from more than half a dozen people by now, and at some point you could consider that maybe those people are right. That's not fun, and that's one of the reasons why editors should probably not edit articles they are too personally involved with. What goes for Law and Order goes here as well: love blinds. Sorry, but that's the breaks. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger complete
✅ Information from Gandhi Memorial Science College Ground has been merged into Govt. Gandhi Memorial Science College. North America1000 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Chili mac
Saw your ping and suggestion (somewhere now forgotten) for Chili mac to be created, so I created it. North America1000 09:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I grew up with 6 other siblings, so we ate a lot of cheap and easy food like chili mac, beans and rice, and the like. It is funny, the stuff we ate as children, other people can't eat for being too hot.  We went from the bottle to the chili pepper, so I guess we were just used to it. And great job, that is more than a stub.  I've been so darn busy lately, barely had any time for here to begin with.  Good work on what I think is an important midwest staple food. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Short note: Just nominated at DYK by User:Sovereign Sentinel, here. North America1000 11:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When I eat foods with hot chili, it makes me want to hit the bottle. North America1000 11:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * N.b. Chili mac in space! For some reason, this reminds me of Pigs in space... North America1000 12:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job! Happy to serve as muse here, you took a raw, off the cuff idea and turned it into something nice.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just another aspect of the universe that is covered on Wikipedia now. North America1000 16:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just another aspect of the universe that is covered on Wikipedia now. North America1000 16:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and  MusikAnimal  talk  18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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


 * Thanks for the pointers and polite tone, I'm reading through some now, although reddit isn't a site I normally read. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Apologies for the interruption. While I can and do empathise with editors about whom comments are made off-Wiki, I cannot agree with suggestions that such mitigates poor behaviour on-Wiki. If, however, as suggested above, you are taking off-Wiki matters into consideration, I direct you to the following site, specifically purposed for the disparagement of editors who do not align to a particular point of view w.r.t the Gamergate controversy topic space. Based on the usernames of the contributors, they include a number of Wikipedia editors, including those participating at WP:AE. Please also see this diff for an example of the site being advertised on-Wiki. NB: I have been mentioned on the site referenced, and on various threads at Reddit. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of spending so much energy on one single idea, GG, boggles my mind. I can kind of understand the POV warriors for I/P or religion, but GG?  I managed to avoid all that controversy by staying away from the Arb hearing and the articles.  That makes me uninvolved, but still confused that people can devote so much of their life to something that history will consider a blip on the radar. I looked at the link, but looking at all these comments on the different sites I find a mix of misogamy, fanboyism, simple hate, denial and juvenile antics that simply have no originality or artistic value, written by people who obviously need to go outside for a change.  Quality wise, most of it is one step below ASCII porn from the 80s.  So it really isn't influencing my vote, the practical realities of getting things done at Wikipedia is what is influencing me to compromise. My opinions are pretty obvious, but in the end something needs to be done that will affect some kind of positive change, and that is the best I could do.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I thank you for your kind reply, and appreciate your attention on this matter; as I appreciate all work done by our Admins to ensure the smooth running of the project. I broadly agree with your assessment of the various sites; though I feel you may have done 80s ASCII porn a disservice in the comparison. My purpose in highlighting the site was to address claims that the respondent editor's on-Wiki actions were mitigated by off-Wiki harassment. I do not believe that this is supportable given that editor's own off-Wiki actions. I do appreciate the thought which you have brought to the WP:AE discussion, and the independence of that thought, and that you are seeking some kind of positive change. I share your belief that an IBAN seems a bit futile, and a consequent concern that we will be back at WP:AE at some stage to discuss essentially the same behaviours. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not video games, it's politics. Politics is why it attracts Sommers and Breitbart's Yiannopoulis as so called "GamerGate supporters".  It's political "stay on message" along with true believers.  It's the only reason why it stays alive for so long.  Best analogy I can think of is abortion and gun ownership.  One faction says "It's murder and there's no way to write the article except as 'this is murder.  children are dying.  Any editor that wants to add anything that says it's not murder is, in fact, supporting more murders. '"   Another faction denies it's murder at all while others see nuances and larger aspects.  We have entrenched editors that believe they are morally obligated to call it murder and we have others in the same camp working to keep it on the "it's murder" message.  They have been largely successful.  There is certainly a huge element of GamerGate that is threats against women but it's not the only aspect.  Mssem has patiently tried to add more aspects that explain why people like Christina Hoff Sommers and Milo Yiannopoulos  are involved or even care. (as far as I know, they are not gamers, game developers, game journalists or misogynists so why are they so prominent as GG supporters? What are they supporting?).  Imagine trying to edit the abortion or gun control articles, and editors label you as being part of a group of murderers or assisting in those murders.  Imagine the gamergate article and everyday being accused of enabling rape and death threats.  It's gone as far as suggesting that Masem should go offsite and try to convince others not to commit rape or death threats as if he personally knew them or knew of them.  How long would an editor last on the abortion articles if they told any editor that documents pro-choice viewpoints or descriptions to the article would be better off convincing their friends not to commit murder, rather than write about the pro-choice viewpoint?  We have a lot more experience dealing with those topics, but the playbook for the politics surrounding it is the same.  That we have failed to recognize that it is a contentious political target ispart of the problem.  --DHeyward (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The analogy above is not useful. All Masem needs to do is go to WP:RSN and make a case that statement X is supported by reliable source Y, and/or go to WP:NPOVN to show that statement X is WP:DUE. Masem has posted at a variety of places (example 1 and example 2)—I have seen several more, but I have never seen any that produced an outcome satisfactory to Masem. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One problem is that many of the sources are basically op-eds and almost inevitably the cacophony of protest is reported and commented upon in more detail. However, until MarkBernstein is removed or retires from the topic area there is little point in getting involved. There is a serious case of RGW going on and unfortunately some admins - even among those who have commented - have long-standing povs of their own regarding such issues. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the same thing that was said about myself, TheRedPenOfDoom, Tarc and the other "Horsemen." "Just get rid of them and the problems will go away." Now, someone else steps up to defend NPOV and living people on the article, and the exact same canard is trotted out, "just remove that person and the problem goes away!" Yes, obviously, if you get rid of all the Wikipedians who are defending living people from false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment, then anonymous chanboard trolls will be free to fill Wikipedia articles about the issue with false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment! Brilliant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I mention RGW? And Bernstein probably should have suffered the same fate as you but he was blocked at the time anyway. That article needs breathing space. Masem has agreed to withdraw; Bernstein has not and won't even respond to challenges of what appear to be untruths in his statements. Someone there has honour and it isn't Bernstein. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So ... it's personal to you? "probably should have suffered the same fate?" Understood, no axes on your end to grind, nossir. 72.198.221.196 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel sorry for the people who defend living people from false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment without all the hostile and zealous behavior. The methods you use give them a stigma that they don't deserve. 69.5.131.1 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you have been so extensively 'sealioned' by a certain side in this debate I thought it would be only fitting that you see two sides to the story regarding the 'voluntary' 3 month leave of Masem. https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/3j2vbu/masem_took_mark_bernstein_to_ae_and_by_the_looks/ 77.97.24.152 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it makes me sound like a dinosaur, but I don't read reddit normally, I have too much going on in the real world and I just fail to see the attraction. As for being "sealioned", that is an interesting metaphor.  How apt it is, I leave to the reader.  The reality is, all I can do is try to be a voice of reason but if consensus is against me, I can't raise hell about it, I am forced to just move on.  I was even willing to compromise.  This was my first venture into the GG arena and I've already learned there can only be two sides and compromise is a sign of weakness.  This is inconsistent with my way of thinking, and Wikipedia's, for that matter.  I didn't visit the Arb case, never edited at GG and avoid gender drama cases on the whole, except a time or two when I was singled out in a comment, by editors that are now Arb banned. I didn't like how the last AE went down, this is true.  It seemed like there was more opinion than rationale, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It's complicated
I'm not posting in ANI anymore per Kingsindian et al's advice, but regarding this: Do what you feel is right regarding the conflict between me and CurtisNaito. If you want to know what that is, you should look at the evidence of uncivil behaviour on the part of me, CurtisNaito, Nishidani, TH1980, Calvin999, Curly Turkey, Signedzzz and everyone else involved in the dispute, and figure out which of us has been aggravating all the others to the point of acting uncharacteristically gruff and even occasionally resorting to profanity. The fact that John Carter and AlbinoFerret have also engaged in disruptive IDHT behaviour to the point of pushing me and Sturmgewehr88 over the edge of profanity a few times in an unrelated dispute is not really relevant -- I'd like to see it dealt with eventually, but my having more than two users who don't like me should not be taken as evidence that I am the one at fault in both cases. As for the accusations of wiki-stalking, please look at the shared editing histories of all parties involved before deciding who is really at fault. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I really prefer keeping this on the ANI page, but I won't labor it. I did look at the page a fair amount, which is how I noticed the bludgeoning, which is part of the problem.  Had you not been dominating the page, it would have been easier to dismiss.  If you weren't the most obvious at being rude, same thing.  To put it bluntly, you do a lot of good work but fuck it up by being too aggressive, and eventually, likely soon, it is going to end up with harsh sanctions.  If others are being dickish, you have to rise above it.  For one, you DO have plenty of detractors, and two, you tend to take a small insult and reply back with a more harsh one, upping the ante.  It isn't personal, quite the opposite, on a good day you add some needed balance but you just get your nose bent out of joint too quickly and it causes more problems.  And you have bludgeoned a page more than once.  You have got to get your head wrapped around your own problems and devise a solution.  One such that any admin can look at the page and easily see that YOU aren't the problem.  And you need to articulate it, a promise and a way forward.  I don't want to sanction, but if you don't address your problems, it is impossible to look at others because your's are the worst of the bunch right now. Not saying it is completely fair, but WP:NOJUSTICE applies.  You know the drill, you get dragged to ANI enough times, someone is going to get hamfisted with the admin bits.  I'm trying to keep you away from ANI. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Your advice is good. I don't think some of the others would accept a mere promise on my part to abide by your advice, and unless something is done they're going to keep asking for my head -- which naturally makes it difficult to build an encyclopedia in the meantime.
 * While I wish I could claim that my recently responding to your request for a proposal on ANI was influenced by your advice above, but I actually only saw this now.
 * I would accept a 48-hour block for my poor adherence to the civility standards on ... various talk pages where I have interacted with CurtisNaito, but he should be similarly warned that his own behaviour (infuriating other users by not reading their talk page comments, edit-warring, routinely bringing content disputes to the noticeboards...) is just as unacceptable. Blocking us both for the same period of time (preferably not long) and linking to the ANI discussion in both of our block logs so no one can come back years from now and pretend either of us was blocked for something else (don't ask...) would hopefully solve the problem.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to put an end to this. AlbinoFerret 14:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, what would you say to mutual IBANs between me and AlbinoFerret, Beyond My Ken, John Carter and TH1980? With all of these users immediately showing up every time a dispute involving me turns up on a noticeboard and requesting that I be permanently removed from Wikipedia, without even attempting to look at the context of the dispute, other users at present have an incentive to elevate their content disputes with me to ANI. This was the case with all of the last three ANI discussions -- the current one, the IBAN-related one last month, and the last CurtisNaito one in May. I can't actually do anything to stop CurtisNaito choosing to post his grievances about me and my sourcing standards on ANI, and with the other four users constantly following my movements these ANI disputes never wind up the way they probably would otherwise. Even though IBANs have done me very little good in the past, I do think mutual IBANs with these four users would effectively solve the problem of my content disputes winding up on ANI once every month or two. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Shit. Didn't see your close. That was a good close. Thank you for stepping in and fixing it. I will do my best to take the advice I received from you, Kingsindian &c next time I have such a dispute. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Hijiri88 has not learned his lesson, asking for IBANS of AN/I regulars from commenting on sections involving him, which he struck after I first wrote this. It also looks like there may have been collusion to derail the AN/I section, or preconceived protection.. The comments in that section are very insulting. AlbinoFerret 14:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (e-c with AlbinoFerret above) In light of Hijiri continuing to see enemies under the bed in his struck comment above, I suppose that, when and if the next complaint is raised, the ongoing habit of Hijiri trying to basically blame everyone else for his own misconduct continued here as well. Certainly not the best sign in the world.
 * Dennis, I'm not sure whether you have ever been party to the arbcom mailing list, I know I'm not in general, but I think your actions in this matter may well be sufficient to make any concerns I may have been made aware of on it as resolved, and thank you for trying your best to resolve a situation which, honestly, is probably the only way to resolve what seems a rather entrenched battle. I'm not sure whether the closing comment officially comes to the level of applying discretionary sanctions, because that isn't clearly indicated, but it is as close as it can get, and probably does constitute the best "final warning" that could be issued.
 * I'd actually give you one of the rather overused barnstars for this, because, honestly, it deserves it, if I hadn't already given you one for reviewing the last related brouhaha. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, obviously, it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to call for Hijiri's head anywhere if he didn't do anything to cause that. So, basically, that seems to me, unfortunately, like more or less an admission from him that he has no intentions, or perhaps ability, of changing.
 * And, I guess, it probably should be noted that in one of the first times I can remember contacting him directly Hijiri referred to someone else "prodding the bear," in this case him, which he considered justifiable response for his dubious conduct thereafter. It is, I guess, worth noting that Hijiri had been, apparently, OUTed at some previous point, and, as one of the admins involved in one of the previous discussions indicated, he seems to have become, well, as that admin put it, "brittle," since then. In general, I would probably be working to help him remain active, because I think the "conspiracy theorist" attitude he has rather obviously taken toward all those who ever question his gross incivility is a combination of the bloated ego of the "bear" who doesn't like being prodded and the paranoia resultant from the previous OUTing. I helped found WP:WCAG specifically to help make it easier for individuals with such problems to edit. But I wasn't thinking of editors with such problems who decide to vent their spleens at others and in some ways try to use wikipedia as a form of therapy. In cases like that, if they can't reform, then they may well become a net loss to the project overall. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm hopeful. Both parties should know that if I say the threshold is very low and they will be quickly blocked, that I mean it.  I'm not one for hyperbole.  I will be keeping an eye out and there won't be any warnings before action takes place.  I don't like having to be so forceful, but the community has been disrupted too many times and I'm confident they will back whatever actions I take to keep the peace. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your ANI closing
Just FYI: if you have a mind to, you can log your final warnings to Hijiri88 and CurtisNatio here, so they don;t disappear when the thread scrolls off of AN/I. BMK (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a section at the top of this talk page. Rather than get into Arb and all that paperwork, or another ANI poll, I'm more likely to just be bold and take swift action.  This actually reduces the strain on the community and is the simplest and most effective way to deal with the problem, by doing it myself.  They both should know that the threshold is significantly lower now and patience has run out. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm glad you're keeping an eye on the situation. BMK (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of the page: Moroni and the Swastika
In October 2014, someone not acting on my behalf created a Wikipedia page concerning my then to-be-published book. The page was subsequently deleted by  for a couple of stated reasons: The concern that the article was purely promotional, and that it may be a religious attack.

Now that my book has been published and has a record of critical response, I am wondering if it we be appropriate to consider reversing the decision to delete the page.

Davidconleynelson1 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You aren't providing enough information for me to give you an answer. I need to know the exact article name, then I can look at it, then determine whether undeleting is appropriate, or if you should just start another article. Of course, WP:Deletion review is an option but you aren't likely to succeed there.  More likely they will want to see your new article first, made at WP:AFC.  That is probably your best option anyway. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Davidconleynelson1: Just a warning that publication by itself does not confer notability to a book. Please take a look at WP:GNG for our general notability requirements, and WP:NBOOK for the specific requirements for books.  If you create the article, and it doesn't fulfill these requirements, there's every possibility that it will be deleted at some point.  You should also read WP:PROMO: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book, that's not what we're here for. BMK (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis: The previous article was Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany. BMK (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That was deleted due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany. My actions were simply acting within consensus.  There appears to be some problems with the article.  Since you didn't write it and there is some controversy as to the content, I would instead suggest writing a brand new article in your user space, then having it moved over the old article.  Anyone can do it, not just admin, although because it was previously deleted at AFD, it will be held to a higher scrutiny and will be deleted under our G4 criteria if is substantially similar to the old one.  This is one reason I suggested using WP:AFC, as you aren't likely familiar with our notability criteria, which is fairly strict.  The vast majority of books don't pass.  Unless the book has significant coverage by at least two or three reliable sources (as defined by WP:RS), it won't stand a chance.  Blogs are generally not reliable, nor is Amazon or any other site that sells the book.  A New York Times review would be of course.  The standard, again, is fairly strict as Wikipedia isn't a depository for articles on all books, just those that have received good coverage by the main stream press. This doesn't speak to the quality of the book, just the buzz generated by it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for Adminship comment
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Oshwah&diff=680880425&oldid=680879458 this comment on Oshwah's request for adminship]: I appreciate your collapsing your comments, as I'm not sure why, given the number of times you've said that being an admin leaves you little time for contributing content, you reacted so strongly to someone saying that content creation is not an important part of adminship. Your own views on administrators being there to perform cleanup duties seem to be in agreement. (*) Additionally, I was surprised you chose to express yourself in a fairly dramatic fashion, which is contrary to your usual approach of seeking to bring editors with disparate viewpoints to a common understanding through a reduction of flamboyant statements.

(*) I agree that the nomination statement is not very clear in its arguments; the first sentence is more related to the contested issue of the degree of article-writing experience an administrator ought to have, rather than the statement made in the second sentence. Many nomination statements, unfortunately, exhibit poor writing style. But in the current environment where there is a paucity of nominations, it may be counterproductive to express strong criticism regarding the writing abilities of nominators on the request page. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In the current environment, many editors are voting against people because of sufficient content experience. To be the lead on nominating, and to basically thumb your nose at all those potential votes was a dumb thing to do and I simply pointed out the obvious, that it was an amazingly stupid thing to do. I'm pretty much in the middle of the road when it comes to content creation, you need some.  What was most remarkable is how many people jumped on my comment instead of letting it stand on it's own. This is what many "content creators" complain about, if they dare oppose for content reasons (a valid reason even if you and I disagree with their conclusions), they are bludgeoned to death by comments.  No one can be allowed to have an opinion that isn't supportive.  It was an opportunity for the candidate, but it was squandered by the half dozen people that felt compelled to defend the candidate....and I wasn't even talking about the candidate, except to question his judgement in choosing a nominator.  I'm not up to debating the issue, which is why I just hatted it.  It was simply a courtesy to the community, not a change of heart. But to be bludgeoned until you capitulate for the crime of taking issue with the candidate or the nomination?  That, my friend, is utter bullshit.  And no, I'm really not up for debating it further here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons why individual responses to each support/oppose/neutral statement is inefficient: it promotes swamping the discussion with redundant, repeated discussion threads. I really hope that some administrator candidates will volunteer to follow an alternate format that reduces repetition.
 * Regarding responses to your comment, it comes back to tone, and how it sparked people to respond. I won't discuss it further other than to suggest that you might consider revisiting your comment in a few days to consider alternate ways of expressing the same sentiments. As you are fond of saying, there is no justice, only solutions. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? When an editor says I'm not really up for debating it further here the right answer is not to continue posting. No one will mind if you revert your comment and this response. NE Ent 01:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your help at WP:FPC re this IP user. Sca (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for (random) advice...
Hello, Dennis Brown! I will admit upfront that I racked my brain on who to run this by, and by happenstance, you drew the short straw!...

OK, so to get to the point, I've been doing some Random page patrolling of late. Which is fine, except that I have little AfD experience (certainly never nominating an article for deletion myself), no CSD experience at all, and only a couple of PRODs under my belt. Anyway, on rare occasions I'll come across an article, and wonder "Should this really be here, on Wikipedia?..." Most of the time I'll just shrug this impulse off, but last night I came across Transphotographiques while Random page patrolling, and it set off my Spidey Sense more than usual.

First off, it's completely unsourced (outside of an External link to the official site, which doesn't seem to count to me) – now that I can take care of with an Unreferenced tag and be done with it. But, in looking at this one, I'm really wondering if it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems promotional (to me, anyway). I'm sure it has "significance" (i.e. A7). Finding any English-language sources for it will be somewhere between a chore and impossible. And it was originally authored back in 2010 by an account that only ever edited this article (and wasn't even autoconfirmed?...). It's been barely touched by anyone since, and doesn't look to have been updated since 2010.

So, my question is – when I as Joe-Average editor come across an article like this, what should I do? Or, really, I guess: what would you do?

P.S. If you can suggest some other AfD/CSD "experts" so I'm not always bugging you with questions like these, I'd appreciate that too!

Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally not an expert but I'm generally fearless so I Afd'd it (after looking for sources per WP:BEFORE) ... let's see if anyone yells at me, and then you'll know the answer. NE Ent 01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've gone ahead and voted in that AfD. I'm glad that my instincts on this one weren't totally off... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy ping
Hi Dennis,

RE:

In my first post in the section at WT:CSD, I linked your username, which I thought provides the ping. Was I wrong? Sorry, I certainly meant to ping you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only guess that since you copy/pasted my quote, it didn't. I simply forgot you can't speedy delete in Draft space.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For god's sake please help me
I'm the guy who made the Universe Sandbox 2 article, remember? The thing is that I had been banned in the past, and I just returned now (a few months later) to wikipedia on another computer so I could start that article. The article is about a software I helped develop. Now some annoying user just keeps deleting my article. Is it a huge problem to just leave the article there even though I'm a "sock" (as you like to call it)? There is nothing wrong with the article and it is pretty useful. I will ping and  as you requested, just in case you are busy. QqqQ1- (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I had a sneaking suspicion.  First problem first: if you've been banned before, you can't just come back under another name.  That is block evasion.  Technically, you should be blocked right now, but I get the feeling you don't quite get how that works.  You have to log into your first account, and then request the unban (or unblock, not sure if you are really banned) from there.  You can ping me.  From that point, I can look at the totality of circumstances and if possible, try to help.  Regardless, there is a process and for now, you need to stop edit warring on that redirect.  Stay calm, disclose everything, lets take a look at what is really going on before we get too excited.  The article will still be there in the history.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark and they know full well how blocking and unblocking works. They've had ample time to request an unblock: User_talk:John Indef blocked the sock and I would strongly oppose unblocking the master given these kind of edit summaries: --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As always, patience pays off and someone smarter than me comes along and makes all right in the Wikiverse. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, although I did take an interest very early and followed him from his first edits.  Looks like we're done here. Thanks for batting cleanup, . Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not smarter. Just happen to catch this at one of the noticeboards earlier today and did the requisite homework. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * * sigh* I don't think I'm cut out for this admin job; I'd have restored the article to Draft:Universe Sandbox 2, Universe Sandbox probably scrapes GNG by sources such as PC Gamer so I think the main thing stopping the sequel from being in mainspace is WP:CRYSTAL. I seem to be in a minority of 1 for this next viewpoint, but I have no real interest in our sockpuppetry policy at all; for sure we need to kick the latest Grawp sock du jour out, but I really think we take things too far. I've edited the sandbox while logged out (to find out exactly what an IP editor's user experience is like) - when am I getting blocked for sockpuppetry? I don't like the G5 criteria either - I mean, deleting something based on who wrote it without regard to what it is basically contradicts WP:NPA's mantra of "comment on the content, not the contributor", doesn't it? I'm sure someone like could rescue this article and beef it up to acceptability if he was interested. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you liked everything about being an admin,, I would be very suspect. Can't tell you how many times I've gone to WP:BN, contemplating asking them to remove the bit.  Still, at the end of the day, I get more done with it than without it.  And I piss off the powers that be by participating in getting some of the policies changed.  For the record, I was more dogmatic about a great many things before becoming an admin, including deleting material just because someone was banned, but I've become more pragmatic in my old age and instead focus on just what is best for the encyclopedia.  I still estimate a minimum of 20,000 socks here, so it is a losing battle using our current TOU and antiquated methods.  They are designed to fail, it would seem.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey,Dennis, did you write that or did I? Or did you just plug into my brain with a USB cable and download my thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In my previous life as head site admin elsewhere on the web, I think we banned about 6-7 people in as many years ... every single one socked. You might as well accept that socking is like software cracks, it's frowned on and you should put up reasonable security against it but the most determined people will do it anyway so you might as well accept it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * After a year and 1500 blocks as an SPI clerk, I gave up. The impression I got from the higher ups was that they didn't take it very serious.  The only times I've been privately "scolded" was related to my working on socks.  I don't remember any of those blocks being reverted, however.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ignoring socking is a really good way to piss off regular, policy-abiding editors who form the backbone of our community. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's saying to ignore socks outright, but our sock policy is antiquated at best. For starters, any website that allows any IP to edit, they are going to have sock problems.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that IP editing seems to be a foundational policy, how would you update our socking policy? Me, I would look really hard at our policy that prohibits linking IP addresses to user names. I think if you're violating our TOU, you are not entitled to have an expectation of privacy. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't about policy, this is about TOU, which is Foundation. It is outside of, and trumps, the community, as the Foundation owns the place.  The community has no input when it comes to TOU.  The Foundation has some very strong ideas (read: Libertarian) when it comes to privacy.  While I completely agree with them as it applies to good faith editors, our ideas diverge when it comes to repeated troublemakers.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For all the talk about "the community", I do not think it is or ever will be as important as the real world who read Wikipedia articles. Right now, I'm listening to the Grateful Dead's take on Johnny B Goode as preserved on archive.org that has praise and rave reviews, despite musically not being that much different from any zillion number of renditions I have played at jam sessions for the last 25 years. It's all about the audience! And therefore the sockpuppetry policy only matters as much as it does to support improving the enyclopedia for the reader, or you can ignore it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who exactly produces and maintains these articles that the audience reads? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We do. Ironically, some of the best content has been produced by socks as well, since not all socks are vandals or trolls, some are just grumpy ass writers.  I've tried to bring back a few from being banned IF they were content creating types, same as I've gone out on a limb to protect those that create tons of content here (much to the chagrin of many others).  We have to chase socks, but I still say our policy needs overhauling to both be more efficient and compassionate.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not as vicious and barbed as some who who think all "non content creators" are scum, but I still think all admins should create some content. Keep the sock-hunting and vandal reverting as your main job, but have some article work on the side you can retire to. I've got User:Ritchie333/Monopoly, which will keep me busy pretty much indefinitely. Or, patrol our list of candidates for CSD A7, find one you don't think meets the criteria, and improve it so it doesn't even go to AfD. As these are often created by new users, you give a great first (or second?) impression to them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work more on content. To really do so, I need to unwatch everything meta, full protect this page, and give back the bit.  Or just use one of my sockpuppets. ;)  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dennis: Don't forget about expanding List of alternative names for currency. North America1000 12:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't, I've mainly been busy trying to expand my currency. ;) Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Smokers
Dennis, given your penchant for smokers, I thought I would pass on this beauty. I am trying to decide if I can justify building it, especially since I have never smoked anything before. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That reminded me to post here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume that uses a steel fire box off to the side, but the idea of cedar is very interesting. Long life, repels bugs, and cedar is used in cooking fish (typically salmon) on the grill.  I've done that more than once.  Will take some time to get a good coating in that sucker, but that is interesting.  I still miss my smoker.  It is at the house where the soon-to-be-ex-wife is temporarily living.  I offered her the house for 25% under appraisal and she was foolish enough to pass on it, so I guess I will end up with both houses, and mortgages.  But at least I will have my smoker back :)  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Small victories I suppose. The firebox is brick and mortar (looks like there is some sort of fire brick within standard house bricks), the door looks cast iron, and was bolted.  I have done cedar planked salmon before, it's quite good.  There are step by step photos of the construction, it actually looks a lot easier to build than it appears at first inspection. It would be a lovely addition to the yard however. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * When planking, just be sure not to use treated cedar house shingles... North America1000 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)