User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 39

I am confused
I recently asked you whether you were the person to approach regarding questions relating to the recent closing/opposition to lifting my topic ban. My question to you appears to have been simply deleted by a user called Ched. Is this you Dennis? I am confused. DrChrissy (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * see above; Dennis is not very active on WP right now. pablo  01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * DrChrissy, you can have any admin help you if there is an issue or question. If you decide to request the ban be lifted in 3 months, just point to that closing.  Nothing really requires me personally.  My job was just to make sense of that one discussion, not to assume responsibility of the enforcement.  That falls on the community as a whole.  Normally, I'm happy to help, but I won't be around Wikipedia while I deal with some heavy duty real world issues.  Trust me, I would rather be here than the real world.... I didn't bother to log in, but it's me, Dennis, and I don't hide my location in Lexington, NC. Please note that I won't be able to follow up. 24.167.133.218 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis. Thank-you very much for replying and I understand what you say.  Sorry to hear all is not well in the real world - I hope things get better for you soon.  All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Good wishes
Dennis, My thoughts are with you and best wishes for the future. Look forward to your return in 2016. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I hope you get a good outcome. You have come this far, the last 100 yards are the hardest sometimes. You will get past the tape. Irondome (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman
Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Dennis Brown: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 19:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Nadolig Llawen
 Martinevans123Santas Grotto ... sends you warmest wishes for a: "Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"



May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Wishing you all the best . ..
And may all your days be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . .] Recharge your Duracell, and we hope to see you more in 2016. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by that: This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Motion

Season's greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Dennis Brown: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Wotcha
People called Romans, they go the house? We found a spoon Sir?. That, much more. Only popped my head in to this hole to say Hi to you. Tough year sir, but my absolute hope and trust the next one will be better for you. All my regards and best wishes. P. Pedro :  Chat 23:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Wednesday!
May this day of hump bring you closer to the weekend! Hump daaaaaaaay!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the season to
chill out, put all the trolls,anti-admin brigadiers, and other nasties behind you and come back when you've had a nice long rest. All the best, Dennis, and you knw where to find me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind notes, I do appreciate. Hope you all have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Holiday, or whatever you celebrate. And if you don't celebrate, you should consider hanging out with people that do, because the food is always awesome :) Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

just saying
As difficult as 2015 was - I hope that 2016 brings you that much joy and contentment Dennis. In the end, being a good person is what matters most - and you are that. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season — Ched :  ?  00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Happy New Year (UTC)


Happy New Year! Dennis Brown, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 00:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Dennis Brown!


Happy New Year! Dennis Brown, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A cool breeze
What is the most intertesting thing (and ha-ha funny) about the most recent conversation at Editor Retention is that I had just nominated the editor (user Happy ______) for the Eddy a few days before. I hope they don't go into the back rooms and see the Award being molded into life. The personal care that gives a newbie a better chance at survival has always been of interest to me since my earliest times. Maybe this is the push that WER needs to revive our efforts at retaining editors. I think we will both agree that the wind in our sails has been dormant for many many months. Have a GREAT year. Buster Seven   Talk  13:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Socks
Boing! said Zebedee and Anna Frodesiak: That was exactly the result I expected, which might explain why my original block of the master was an indef. But you tried, and that is all you can do. For the sake of appearances and all possible fairness, I knew it was better for me to just say nothing and give him every chance to dig himself out, or dig himself deeper. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of conservation of resources, I am very pleased that you didn't go through all of that. My aim is always to get a net reduction in keystrokes and reads in an issue. I invested an hour to stop what was I guess, five hours of keystrokes and reads from becoming more. I gambled. I lost. I will probably gamble again. There must be a way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think gambling is the right move, even knowing you don't win them all. My personal opinion is that this problem isn't going to ever be solved, but I'm involved, so perhaps I simply lack imagination. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's always worth spending some time trying to help someone who clearly can make high-quality contributions - but when you realize you're being played for a fool, then it's time to move on to something more productive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree. I had already been played enough but stayed out in case he had only done it to me.  I didn't want to taint the process and deny him a fair chance.  He had his chance with you guys and blew it.


 * And as of noon EST today, I'm a single man. That's only one problem solved, but I've cracked open some Shiner Bock and going to relax and let it soak in. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! (Well, in a way - I know you know what I mean!) Good choice on the Shiner. Ever tried Shiner's Prickly Bear?  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, growing up in Texas, we drank Shiner Bock back when that is the only beer they made. If you go to Luckenbach (♫ "like Willie and Waylon and the boys..." ♫), that is the only beer they serve.  Going to log off now.  Had to do a few hours of boxing and moving heavy stuff, her stuff, to get her moved out of the other house, which I'm going to move back into once she is out.  I'm being very nice and helping by loaning my pickup and doing a lot of the labor....but the Vicodin and beer are kicking in, so I'm better off logging off before I get mouthy ;)  Dennis Brown - 2&cent;' 21:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Boxing pictogram.svg...Who won? Buster Seven   Talk  22:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow up
To save you the reading, he has super-double, pinky-swore, promised to wait 6 months. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bass Solo, Take One. North America1000 15:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

RussianDewey
Hi Dennis! We never bump into each other any more; I hope all is well with you. I wanted to let you know that I restored User:RussianDewey's access to their talk page with a note that any abuse would result it the access being re-revoked. They sent an appeal via UTRS that showed some growth and understanding of the reasons for the block. Given the strong support for the block I don't believe the new appeal should be off-wiki or dealt with unilaterally. I hope you don't mind! Cheers, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all, I trust your judgement and share your hope that he really has turned over a new leaf. I've been very scarce this year, dealing with real life adventures.  Hoping to be busier later this year, I'm avoiding most admin duties and just editing a bit until then.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a note of neutrality on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone should aspire to more real life adventures!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This one centered around a divorce and lots of ugly stuff, so I would rather have been bored here ;) Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, that's an entirely different story. Here's wishing you a much more mundane 2016.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A question for the experienced...
What does Wikipedia do with Wikipedia Projects that are unstaffed? We have Ignosticism, which had only two members, both of whom are now indef blocked with Talk Page Access removed. Chances of them returning is pretty small, as they are both serial sockpuppeteers. No rush to answer, as I know you are busy; just wondering if there is a process in place for removal, or if such things hang on in limbo. Hope all is well in your world!  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They get tagged as inactive. If there is a good reason to get rid of them altogether, they get sent to WP:MfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ttt74
Dennis, I'm not sure there was any need to block Ttt74. I had topic banned him from Muhammad five minutes earlier. Perhaps you hadn't noticed? The timeline is a bit crowded. But I think a ban is better than a block. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

And now I see you have posted on his page, just below my ban notice — did you still not see it? Oh, well. Surely you don't think he needs both? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
 * I had not seen your topic ban, I had been busy reading through his contribs, where I noted a pattern and felt like it would be appropriate to at least put the breaks on him, given his reluctance to take heed. Either a short block or topic ban can be justified, depending on your perspective, but as I indicated at both places, I'm happy to defer to your judgement.  I would not have taken action had I seen you were already on the case.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , to further clarify, I did note that you had put the Sanction warning on his page, but assumed you wouldn't take action, as most of the problems were before the tag was given to him, thus not subject to sanction. They *were* still subject to sanction for plain old disruption, which they were.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel I've become surprisingly fast with those forbidding AE templates! Not that it's a race… ahem. :-) What do you think of the duration of the ban, six months? Too long? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Not really Bish. Blocks and TB are two very different approaches to the problem.  Blocks are certainly easier to do, but not particularly effective.  TBs are a pain to administer and arguably somewhat more effective while in place (else they lead to blocks...), but I'm not sure anything is effective if someone is dead set on a POV, and I fear that might be the case here, which is why I instinctively went with the option that has less baggage: a fatalistic approach.  That said, 3-6 months is a pretty reasonable range, so I don't see any problem with your actions.  Perhaps we will get lucky this time and he will actually learn the system here during that time and scale back his aggressive methods.  Time will tell.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The account has only been here since February 9. Did you get a notion that they're surprisingly ready with the alphabet soup? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
 * I had noticed that, yes. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My strong impression is that the EIQ has considerable experience editing some other-language Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at his user page history, you see his native tongue is Arabic ("اللغة الأم لهذا المستخدم هي العربية.‎" == The mother tongue of this person is Arabic). If you go to the Arabic Wiki, you don't see any contribs even though that is the most logical place to find them.  You see a scattering of contribs in other areas.  I haven't checked every Wiki, but my first impression stands at this stage. Previous (or concurrent) accounts don't always mean wrongdoing, but I would bet that is the case. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Time will tell. Jeh (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

New list
Help to expand List of restaurants in the Las Vegas Valley if you're interested. See the talk page there for more info. Cheers, North America1000 11:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Big list. I've eaten at more than a few of them, as I regularly find some tradeshow there I can attend, thus write off the whole trip.  My favorite is the Le Village Buffet at the Paris Hotel.  I make sure I have at least one meal there every trip. Exceptional prime rib, and the desserts are insane, including their crème brûlée.  Go hungry.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. I love that buffet, especially the way they organize it into different regions featuring the food of that region. A little geography lesson with your paté and crepes. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aaaah, a buffet serving high-quality foods...becoming rarer and rarer to find nowadays. North America1000 17:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not just high quality, but high brow and better quality than Applebee's or Chili's or any other sit down chain. If you are like me and pig out a bit, it is actually cheaper to eat at the Le Village.  I always hit the prime rib counter twice, for instance.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotta get your money's worth! Yea, I checked out the link/menu/pricing at the link above. Vegas baby!. North America1000 21:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In other news, here's a new one I just created...List of chickpea dishes. North America1000 21:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still tied up in the real world for the most part, but want to get back to these later. I'm moving, then two months later will be moving for the last time. (Long story)  I eat chickpeas regularly, but usually just heated with butter, salt and pepper.  Great side dish with pork or chicken. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your asterisks show up, but mine don't here. Hey, the articles should remain in place, so no rush. Aah, the joys of moving, have fun lumping all your stuff to and fro! Oh yes, and hummus is way better than anything else, except maybe for falafel. Hummus and falafel, now you're talking! North America1000 11:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This Weeks Editor of the Week
...is, a relatively new editor that works hard at improving the encyclopedia experience for all. She deserves a few messages of appreciation. Dennis, I have no idea if anybody pays attention to what happens at the WER pages anymore. For years I have been challenging members of the project to Drop by his/her talk page and give him/her a pat on the back and let him/her know he/she is supported. And for years the response has been miserable. O, every now and then an editor will get nominated that has a fan club and some 5 or 6 editors will drop in to say congrats. But most of the time I have to send out specific requests to specific editors or no one but me shows up. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy giving out the awards and I enjoy the cheerful responses that I get from most awardees. But can you imagine the pleasure that we as a project would give another editor if every week 3 dozen or more editors said, "Well done. Thank you". Happysquirrel said this after only two editors thanked her: "Thank you so much everyone! This means so much to me. It's always good to know my efforts are appreciated. As someone who works mostly with new articles and new editors, I find myself often on the margins of the community, helping people inwards, but never going in completely myself. You can't imagine how great it is to have people coming out to congratulate me." Veteran editors waste so much time arguing. I know getting any membership to do something positive can be like herding cats. Sending good wishes takes ONE minute. Editor retention happens one editor at a time. I don't think Editor Happysquirrel will be leaving soon. This message, abbreviated, is at the EotW talk page and the Project talk page. I place it here in hopes that your stalkers will respond. Buster Seven   Talk  06:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is one reason I'm scarce. I have enough fighting and struggle in the real world, too many people that saw WER as the "enemy" (how, I have no idea) which is why I've pulled back hoping someone else will take the lead.  Real life is still entirely too hectic.  I'm moving, again, and will be moving yet again in two months.  All this moving is killing me, but I'm getting rid of a couple of houses and moving close to work.  Plus working two jobs.  Wikipedia is just very low on the list of what is important right now.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The talk page at WT:WER has become a ghost town. North America1000 20:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All that's left is the Award which, actually, is the cleanest, most personal way to achieve Editor Retention. Someone has taken the lead---Me. But I'm no Dennis. I don't have your cachet. WER talk feels like a ghost town because I'm the only ghost there. My idea was just to leave a few of these challenges around WER-town and see if I could engender some response for the Eddy recipients. If NA1000 goes and congratulates Happysquirrel, I'll consider this an accomplishment. Buster Seven   Talk  01:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough people put enough pressure, I just don't have the time to fight people who live and breath power here. Wikipedia is what I do with my free time, not how I define myself.  Not everyone is the same.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I get your point Dennis. No pressure intended toward you. Like I said I'm more talking to your stalkers. But it would have taken less time to thank Happysquirrel than it did to respond to me. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Universe Sandbox
Reguarding Universe Sandbox, you said: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&oldid=681215927 "The article is about a software I helped develop." which caused the Universe Sandbox wikipedia page to be tagged with a 'conflict of interest' tag. Can you please explain here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universe_Sandbox what you meant by that and how you are not actually a developer of the game? And as the creator of Universe Sandbox, I really appreciate your historical contributions to that page. DanDixon (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That was User:QqqQ1- (a known sockpuppet, now blocked) that said that, not me.  is a better link that shows it and the rest of the conversation.  The actual diff is here   I'm not a software developer of anything, period.  I'm a business owner and contract marketing director.  At best, I can hack around with Perl for small web apps and to admin a Linux system, but I've never written a line of C/C++ in my life.  I do own a copy of Universe Sandbox but I've not got a single edit to that article nor the talk page.  My guess is that he came here looking for help, as I was very active then and tend to try to help people with problems if there is a chance to rehabilitate.    Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't read that closely enough. Thanks for the reply and explanation (and thanks for picking up a copy of Universe Sandbox). DanDixon (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fenate_Rranz
I am not this user. Renate Franz 92.216.107.113 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi DB: A recent edit you performed here has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 03:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-semiprotect Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso?
Unsourced edits with no edit summaries.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No one has tried to communicate with him, so I left a message on his talk page instead. Lets see where that goes. Please note that I'm not around much lately, so might not be able to follow up. Hopefully it won't be needed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Idea
Knowing something like this has been proposed before, I wonder if you, at some point, might want to maybe look at and/or comment at User talk:John Carter. It really is a sort of complete overhaul of the existing system, and maybe not much if any improvement, but it might be a sort of starting point for discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I admire your moxie in attempting such an endeavor, but I don't have the time to be of any use. I'm the busiest that I've been in many years, while trying to sell a home and move at the same time.  My time here is almost non-existent.  I'm not sure when or if I will return to a more active schedule here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
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/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. ''This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page.'' For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward & Gamaliel
Its deliberate scope creep in order to obfuscate the case. If you take a look back at past arbcom cases, one of the defenses that crops up regularly over the *years* is "I'm being harrassed, I should receive special consideration." Now where the alleged harrassment is from another wikipedia editor, this editor is then dragged into the case and used as a tool to mitigate the actions of the (original) complained about party. As it currently stands, Gamergate is being used to expand the scope of the case in order to provide a defense for Gamaliel. It allows Dheyward to be brought in despite no one (except heavily partisan parties) making a complaint about him, raising a previous objection at ANI or AE (both of which are equipped to handle sanctions on an untooled editor and which should be used if there was a genuine problem before Arbcom get involved) and who has zero to do with Gamaliels blatant BLP violations, tool abuse and political soapboxing RE Trump. Its obfuscation by process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that no rationale has been given to include DHeyward. All of Gamaliel's admin actions will be on the table, and should.  If they are going to expand the scope, you would expect an explanation.  Otherwise, you leave people to guess the motivation.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom Evidence
Your Arbcom evidence is very unlike you. You're usually well spoken and direct, but your evidence seems to be casting a lot of aspersions w/o any evidence.--v/r - TP 09:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Dennis: Understanding the horror of gamergate requires a fair bit of work. It is true that the editor you believe has been favored is a pain, but I would be very surprised if there is evidence of favoritism. If you want to link to an WP:AE case where you believe the outcome was faulty I would like to have a look and evaluate it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've avoided the politics of GG (including one now banned editor trying to drag me into the case), but I have watched them from afar and gave up acting as admin once I saw an obvious bias at work. I don't expect much if anything to happen, I lost a great deal of faith in the process here, to be honest.  I've stuck around only out of hope of being pleasantly surprised.  As for evidence, I'm not up to dragging in all the off wiki evidence, you too easily get into claims of outing and such.  This is not to say that Gamaliel is being nefarious, nothing I've said indicates that.  It only indicates that he isn't aware of how biased he is acting in a few places.  As for "casting aspersions", again, this word is used too often here and it is used incorrectly.  I am calling into question his impartiality and ability to be objective, I'm not calling into question his character nor saying he has maleficent intent, so using that phrase is simply incorrect usage.  I have linked to several cases now, and there are more I believe.  Ironic that Gamaliel is the FIRST to comment on every single one of them.  Coincidence?  Believe what you will.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:MPOV?--v/r - TP 19:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you are going with that TParis. I think he is overly invested in the topic.  We all can get that way with a topic.  If we are wise, we recognize it and put the tools aside and only comment in the non-admin areas when discussing it.  If we are not wise, then it requires others to call us out on it.  I think it is that simple.  As for GG, I honestly couldn't give a shit about the topic, I'm just tired of the drama, and biased admin work only makes it worse.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was in regards to Gamaliel. To summarize the essay, sometimes we mistakenly believe that we are neutral when we're not.--v/r - TP 00:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That very well may be the case, hence why I'm not casting aspersions and instead talking about the result of his actions, not his character. As I said, it is easy to get blinded by politics.  In the military, it is a constant struggle to avoid local politics as well, as we both know.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Childressvineyards.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Childressvineyards.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Totally foolish to call this "copyrighted". I deal with copyright and trademark law regularly, it is unlikely they could get a copyright that would stand up to a court case for that label. The checkered flag isn't copyrightable. Not every logo or label is able to be copyrighted in the real world. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, yes, it looks as if the file is mistagged as unfree. It's easy to overlook this if the file information page asserts that the file is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wondered. I get it that many labels would be copyrighted, but this one really can't because it is pure generic.  I just now saw that the article went to AFD.  I didn't create it, just supported it so I missed it.  It is a significant winery (although I don't care for their wine personally), so all this gyration looked odd.  I made it so won't monkey with it, but it really should be tagged as free, Stefan2.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to (wine)butt in. The checkered flag is not copyrightable, however the wine label as a whole probably is (in the UK at least) due to the Childress Vinyards unique logo & layout on the label. Or rather, the logo aspect would be copyrightable, but not the flag bit. Unsure how this would apply to a picture of the bottle, there used to be a rough '% of the work' guide for stuff like that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the US it wouldn't be. It is just too generic.  The fonts are generic.  Take a look at a lot of logos that aren't copyrightable here.  Of course you can trademark any name (but not number, see: 586/Pentium), but the artwork must be truly unique here to pass muster.  See Commons:Threshold of originality for some real examples here.  If the flag had unique markings instead of black and white checkers, then it could possibly be copyrighted.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow! signal & Ohio State University Radio Observatory articles
Hello Dennis, I know you are busy with many important personal things in your life, but could I please draw your attention to the activities of who is making changes on the above pages without giving any reason whatsoever and has reverted edits to bring them back into line with the long established text. I have asked for an explanation and warned that this actions are against Wikipedia policy, but have only received abuse. Could I please ask you to look into this please. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again Dennis, I see the above mentioned IP has again reverted, after a 24 hour block, the consensus edit on the Wow! signal article. I do not intend to try to engage with this person again, but feel that action should be taken to stop this disruption. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would second this request, although I doubt you should be the one to do it, Dennis. As he has directly insulted you, it my be that you would be considered WP:INVOLVED.  All I can see is they are just trying to stir the pot, to see how bad it stinks at the bottom.  A WP:NOTHERE block would be appropriate, given the nature of the trolling.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Trump coverage
I imagine Andreas might be reviewing this material already, but this link indicates that we have gotten at least a little coverage on the matter. I have no idea whether it is worth mentioning, though. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Post was deleted. I think there is plenty of information here already, and piling on tends to make problems less likely to get solved.  The question is what is done about it.  Theoretically, policy is policy and it shouldn't matter what the outside world says about it, although we both know that isn't always the case.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted, the above URL is just wrong, see this.--v/r - TP 02:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mildly interesting but of no consequence. Others also document our deleted articles, albeit at a lower profile.  This case should be pretty straight forward, all about interpretation of policy.  That doesn't mean it will be.  (Dennis) 2600:1004:B06A:FBF1:0:0:E755:6701 (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeable or unreasonable diffs?
I have disagreed but never been disagreeable. I have always been civil. I have always been reasonable. Please provide specific diffs of otherwise. Hugh (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to read my comment again. I said you were discussing in good faith and weren't being disagreeable.  Most of the time at AE, the result is a block, but in this case I thought it wasn't needed as you began to engage in a proper way.  I didn't say you had ever been disagreeable, just in violation of the topic ban.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What edit in your view was a violation of the topic ban? Hugh (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I covered it there, and considering it is an AE issue, it should stay on the AE page as that is the proper venue. I'm happy to discuss issues via WP:ADMINACCT on my talk page, but this doesn't fall into that.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Respectfully request at AE a reconsideration of your comments at AE. I have recently completed my statement, adding an apology for missing the notice, and adding important detail of the earlier event at Institute for Energy Research, and adding the actual edit in question in order to facilitate an evaluation of the conservative political payload if any. Respectfully request good faith consideration of the context of a re-focus of my volunteer work in the area of climate change; sincerely, no topic ban violation or boundary testing was intended. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to simply stand by my original statement at AE. You didn't get blocked, and I agreed with that since you did engage, but I think there is a general and universal agreement that you are skirting the edges of your topic ban.  When it comes to topic ban, yes, other's actions may be looked at but it isn't consequential in a case like this were the ban was violated and 5 admin agree with no dissent. I think you have to just live with it.  After the expiration of the original topic ban, you would be eligible for having it lifted, but I recommend waiting 3 months.  It is all but final.
 * Let me say this, I'm not a fan of topic bans although they have their place, and at the end of the day, what admin really want is peace and quiet, so everyone can just edit. You're a smart guy, that is quite obvious. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, you surely see that it is at least reasonable for others to have a different conclusion, particularly when it is 5 highly experienced editor/admins.  How you end this AE discussion is what will be noted when you ask for a topic ban review, so choose your words wisely if you make a final statement.  And with that, I'm done with the topic; you are welcome to have the last word if you choose. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence statement removed
Hi Dennis. After discussion on the clerks-l list, I have removed your evidence submission at the Gamaliel and others as outside the case scope. You are welcome to add any evidence that is relevant to the scope of the case, which is defined as Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a clerk action and may not be reversed without the permission of a clerk or arbitrator. This may be appealed to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org or arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org. Cheers, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably worth a side discussion
Our free speech and 1st/14th Amendment rights discussion probably should go over here because it's actually starting to get kind of interesting, but I do agree it's wise not to drag it out over at ArbCom. My point over there is mostly that your arguments about employers and hobbies and volunteers having assorted limits on free speech just isn't in line with the first amendment. (You are on stronger ground just keeping it within wiki and not trying a first amendment analysis with a lawyer, my friend.) That said, you are right to block people who about the WP terms of use, and that falls under a couple clear exceptions to the general protection of the first amendment -- fighting words, time/place/manner restrictions, threats, etc. Political satire in the newsletter is not at all the same thing as a troll abusing people based on race, creed, or color, harassment of people who are private citizens, and so on. BLP is there to address libel and slander (at least I presume that's what the WMF lawyers would say). It is not there to keep snark or satire out of the newsletter. I am finding it rather stunning that that debate was even occurring. G's use of the mop should be the issue at ArbCom, not his contributions to a satire on April Fools' Day or his status as editor of the Signpost. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 00:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look, you see I treat the BLP violation in what I think is the proper light; it was a moderate violation of policy and it was the use of tools afterwards that was the real problem. As for freedom of speech, I will just say I have a little background in that as well, although I'm not a lawyer.  For starters, no right is absolute, and the intent of the 1st is to prevent governmental intrusion.  This is why you right to free speech doesn't include a right to force others to listen for instance.  Anyway, I may revisit here, it is late. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As our own articles on WP point out the 1st, the 5th, the 14th, etc. have no bearing on the private sector at all. They were used as a rationale for federal workplace discrimination law but even that doesn't protect speech. Due process is only afforded to government employees it offers no protection to private sector employees. State constitutions may extend further protections though. Or they can be like my state where I can fire anyone for any reason I please with no explanation so long as it doesn't fall under federal anti-discrimination statutes. And even then, because I don't have to give an explanation, the employee has to prove that my reasoning falls afoul of anti-discrimination law. Trust me I've been through twice over the last ten years and both times the employee lost.


 * Speech also isn't protected in the private sector. Ask Curt Schilling or any of the endless parade of commentators that have been fired for saying stupid shit. Capeo (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Political satire in the newsletter is not at all the same thing as a troll abusing people based on race, creed, or color, harassment of people who are private citizens, and so on...I am finding it rather stunning that that debate was even occurring." Frankly, Montanabw, the only difference is a political one. The BLP in this case is rather hated by the type of folks who edit Wikipedia and so a de facto exemption has been created.  The only way to look at this impartially is to see that the BLP doesn't have a signpost or satire exemption and learn from it.--v/r - TP 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For our own self preservation, everyone needs to vote for Trump to keep North Korea appeased. The leader of North Korea is extremely angry that someone who wears fancier pantsuits than he may be elected President of the U.S. and has vowed to nuke the U.S. off the face of the planet should that person become President.--MONGO 17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you vote TParis '16, I promise to never to wear fancy pant suits.--v/r - TP 18:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this cycle of potential candidates suck, was thinking about writing myself in...President MONGO has a nice sound to it.--President MONGO 22:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If, as to me seems perhaps not unlikely, the individuals who wrote this piece included a few people who may be opposed to or at least not supporters of the candidacy of the person running (a group that includes me, by the way), then I could see that this piece of humor, particularly in an election season which gets a bit hysterical on its own without any help from us, could be reasonably seen as problematic. How problematic, I dunno. Luckily, that's not my call, as I'm not an arb. I could see, maybe, an exception to BLP for cases where the story itself rather denigrates its writers, preferably using absurdist humor, along with the subject, making the piece really, really strange as well as funny. Unfortunately, without such internal evidence that would disqualify the piece as being in any way "quotable" by outsiders, there is a serious chance such a piece could be misused by others to indicate it says something it didn't. Some people, particularly those with a tendency to react quickly and/or not check such claims, might take it as more than it was intended to be, and that could definitely be problematic.
 * Trump is, from what I remember, rather lawsuit-happy to begin with. The purposes of BLP include, among others, avoiding lawsuits. In all honesty, I have to wonder whether, under the circumstances, there might not have been a much better way of doing this piece. Not that I myself have anything particularly against it, but I'm not sure everything was thought through as thoroughly as I might like. And, personally, I think we are probably best avoiding any humor of a particularly political or cultural type. Something like a Weekly World News article, maybe, preferably with a picture of one of the article's writer(s) which doesn't cast the writer in a particular good light with a goofy caption, but I think that is probably as far as such should go. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, it's particularly worrying that the signpost sees it's role as anything outside of Wikipedia. It also bothers me that the lead copy editor and the editor in chief believe it's not only the role of the Signpost to cover Wikipedia news, but to, themselves, make such news.  The Signpost is not a tool of the editors to wield in their own personal disputes.--v/r - TP 18:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No part of Wikipedia is a policy sanctioned, walled garden as of today. If people want to change that, they need to start an RFC.  They might also want to run it past WMF legal, who has a vested interest in our BLP and other policies with legal ramifications.  You literally can not exclude one area from BLP without WMF permission.  They DO own the place, after all.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you are engaging in slippery slope logic there, but I hope you are correct that the real issue is "... it was the use of tools afterwards..." As long as that's the focus, I'm not too concerned; that is a reasonably understandable line. (Also, no one seems to notice that the article was primarily making fun of Jimbo, with most of the fake Trump quotes making fun of wikipedia itself.) The truth is, some workplaces do fire some people for saying some stupid stuff, but (and I am saying this as someone who used to work in the area of labor law) but while an employer may limit an employee's speech either at the workplace or what they say about the workplace to a limited extent, they cannot restrict the civil rights of their employees beyond a very limited scope (though some free speech or other behavior outside of work might cause problems with promotion, per human nature, but that's different -- and impossible to litigate).  None of that applies here, with the possible exception of WMF employees who also edit.  And hmmm... "President  does have a certain ring to it...  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  01:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. Not sure what my platform will be....Hum. Beer, rock and roll, Peace. Nah...free ox rides and candy for all!--President MONGO 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Beer? Rock and roll?  Sounds promising... add chocolate...?  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  08:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about TBAN scope
Dennis, you were involved with this recent ARE. As part of it you identified these two edits as indicative of the TBAN violation,. The editor in question has added very similar edits to the Exxon Mobil page,. Do you feel this would be a violation of the extended TBAN? I'm asking as a sanity check. I think the editor has been on a disruptive roll recently but I don't want to open an ARE if my reading is off base. I'm very frustrated with this editor's recent behavior but that probably clouds my judgment. Thank you. Springee (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to really look closely, but at first glance, I can easily see why you might be concerned. I would suggest asking another one of the admin that participated if they think so, and if filing a new AE is worthwhile, or (my first choice) if they will go and talk to him.  I prefer to not add more process if possible. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I've contacted Bishonen based on your suggestion. Springee (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Kingo7672
The user's edits have been disruptive but there appears to be no evidence of sock puppetry there unless there are deleted edits or another account not mentioned. The 86.187 IPs (BT Wi-fi, UK) are another user who's been undoing edits by Eik Corell, and the 5.29 IP (HOTnet, Israel) is possibly Kingo7672 but has only made one edit since the account was created and the use of IP instead of account may have been unintentional. Peter James (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The 86 ips and King appear to me to be the same person, same for 5*, based on my investigation. Grimsby (film) shows that, for starters.  My notes were at the SPI only because it had been filed.  Otherwise, I would have caused more work for another admin who would have had to look up the accounts, check their block logs, etc.  I wouldn't have filed the case myself, but since it was open and I knew about it, I was obligated to make notes there, which were about my actions, not my conclusions, with the exception of stating that the 5* addy was likely the same person, a conclusion I still maintain based on random sampling of their prose.  As to whether or not it is socking, it is academic in this case. I blocked all three as that was necessary to prevent the user from causing disruption.  All of them had prose that was similar enough that I felt it was the same person.  Of course, if another admin disagrees and chooses to unblock any or all, no offense will be taken.  They don't need my permission to act. A CU reviewed the SPI and closed it.  If you strongly feel that I made a mistake, Bbb23 would be a good source to independently review. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection to the account and IPs being blocked, only to allegations of sock puppetry. There's more about the 86.187 IPs at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Peter James (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wild new articles
List of baked goods created today! I've sent this message to the few remaining Wikipedia users I know nowadays that may still be into food list articles (Anna F, Dennis B, Mudwater). Sometimes people are busy, or not interested, so if nobody adds anything, I'll hold it against you forever (ha ha.) I also spun-out List of buns from bun today. Complain to me on my talk page, or here, or both. Enjoy pizza emoji, North America1000 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No hat note pointing to buttocks, NA1K? I did the big move from the lake house (bank owns now....) to the farm, now I'm moving from the farm to the city, so I'm tied for a few months while I paint, clean and move 50 to be much closer to work, and hopefully sell the farm.  Real life is crazy, and frankly, not much fun right now.  But continue with the weekly postings, I don't mind them at all.  When I do get time, food is the topic I want to work in.  Very little dramna and adds quality to the place.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All right. In other news, should I bring my birth certificate if I have to take a dump use the restroom in NC? Folks there be thumpin' 'dem bibles ! ? North America1000 14:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Dennis: One more new wild article recently created: List of bread rolls! North America1000 01:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

ani close
good close, & thanks for them mention.  DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I had been watching that discussion for some time, seeing it wasn't a simple problem, and you did wrap it up well enough that I didn't see a room for improvement.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

DA appeal
Why did you close my appeal while I still had further inputs in my unfinished review on the diffs? You asked for new information and I was in the process of giving more information. STSC (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Three admin reviewed, including myself, all three basically agreed. MarkBernstein did raise an interesting point, but even if you dismiss that one diff, there was ample justification to implement the topic ban.  Even Mark wasn't taking a side, just making a (valid) point. The request was open almost 4 days which is more than adequate to review an appeal like this.  What I did is pretty normal, and what is expected of admin. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did ask for more time by saying "I can only input bit by bit here when time allows", and I was still in the process of reviewing the diffs. To sudden close the appeal like this isn't in the interest of fairness, as it seems to me a suppression on further evidence presented from the appellant. STSC (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't look like suppression. You had four days to present evidence that the diffs were somehow "wrong" and you didn't. Three admin had decided that lifting the ban was a bad idea, none decided it was a good idea.  It isn't a court of law anyway.  You are welcome to appeal directly to Arb.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User page
I updated your user page for you.--v/r - TP 23:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have listened to Nancy Reagan, and just say no. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!
I need a good beer or 6 so thanks. ;) Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Chug a lug...Cheers! North America1000 16:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks
Just wanted to drop a TY for all the hard work you do. — Ched : ?  15:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Guidance needed
Hi (cc ) As you were the closing administrator for this issue, and if you'd be so kind, would you please review the comment I've left on the AfD's of the following article subjects and give advice on same? Thanks.


 * Question Hi In the span of a few hours you've nominated for deletion the articles of three notable artists (Fred Cray  Lindsey White Rashawn Ross) and one of Mexico's most prominent architects Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta. Granted, all of their articles need work, but is that the reason you're nominating them? Or, are you an expert in this subject seeing things others aren't? Just wondering, and hopefully, willing to learn your evaluation process as it would, most certainly, save me a lot of research time. Thanks.

Thank you, in advance, for any, and all, guidance you can give me. Picomtn (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Most would call me "middle of the road" when it comes to the inclusionist/deletionist, excepting cultural stuff, which I tend to defend hard. Fred Cray, had I found it, I might have nominated myself.  Same for Reshawn.  The articles you link are just mentioned, and in no way pass WP:SIGCOV, even if he has worked WITH famous people.  Not sure about Linsay White, I didn't look very hard at it.  As to his comments, I don't see anything that violates policy.  Maybe I'm missing something, perhaps you could explain exactly what you think he said that is the problem.  Is it that he pinged ?  That isn't something I would recommend, but DGG is about as fair as anyone and I have done the same before.  I know from experience that DGG will either ignore or vote as he choses without being influenced. If it is saying he would have G4'd, that is just a statement of fact in his eyes, not a policy issue.  I've said similar, that I thought an article was borderline CSD but decided to go to AFD for a larger discussion.  Probably not the answer you were looking for, but if I'm just looking at these three AFDs, I don't see anything remarkable.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for your insightful comments, and to answer your question, here's my issue: As you, or anyone, can tell by my edits and by reading this and this, I work very hard to save notable articles from deletion, but this is made much harder than it should be by those nominators who fail to do even the most basic of research. Also, and I'm sure you know this, a correct AfD exactly cites WP policies so that AfD reviewers have a place to start from in their evaluations. Now, and as to the example articles I've cited, by the time this process is finished for them they'll all be saved, or in the case of Rashawn Ross possibly merged. Now one would think that the nominator of these articles would assist in improving them, but with this particular editor it won't happen, and that's extremely frustrating. For example, I've started a complete rewrite of the Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta article (and there's more to do of course) and fail to see why this nominator didn't do it themselves. Please note though, I can only believe that this editor is working in what they believe is WP's best interest by their wholesale nomination for deletion of articles that only need improvement. But, are they really doing it correctly? Thanks.Picomtn (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got over 50k edits and the admin bit, but I still have to defend articles I create from time to time. Now, I use user space and make sure I have at least three rock solid sources.  Not mentions, but sources, so I seldom have to face AFD.  If an article is deleted, you can always ask the closing admin to userfy the article in your space and work on it there.  There are a lot of people I think are important, but aren't "notable" as defined by WP:GNG, so I don't make articles on them.  Same for other topics.  I know it seems kind of limiting, but if we weren't this way, we would have to allow every article on every .com wannabe and self-proclaimed expert or rich business guy.  The playing field is level, but that doesn't mean it is always fair.  Such is life.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

, in areas where WP editors are not expert, they tend to go by a rather hasty interpretation of the GNG, rather than look properly for sources that will show notability .As Dennis says, the only way of preventing this is to write very strong articles. In the case of the visual arts, there are fortunately two clear provisions in the special notability guidelines WP:CREATIVE that are easy to demonstrate: 1) Work in the permanent collections of major museums, and 2) third party critical work about the artist. Either of these is ordinarily sufficient, but I would not even try to write an article in this field unless I could securely demonstrate one or the other;. I would not rest on implications of notability from the presence of works in temporary exhibitions, or coverage in exhibition catalogs that are not strictly independent. And I think it gives an improper air of promotionalism  to include the name of the artist's representative or agent: that belongs on the artist's web site. If a strong promotion-free article in this field is listed for deletion, I like to be informed, for I will generally support it, but I will not support promotionalism, especially when combined with marginal or unproven notability.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you so much for this very clear, and concise, argument I can use in the future: "two clear provisions in the special notability guidelines WP:CREATIVE that are easy to demonstrate: 1) Work in the permanent collections of major museums, and 2) third party critical work about the artist." However, (and as I've, also, been discussing with ) in dealing in a reality where even  can have one of their articles challenged because of subjectivity, as it relates to WP policies, makes this all a rather large whack-a-mole game. Now, I can 100% guarantee you that sometime in the future I'll use what you've given me here, and I can, also, guarantee that as soon as I use it will be countered by someone using a different one. And depending upon who wins this WP policy interpretation conflict (by mostly inexperienced editors) is what decides if an article survives or not. Please don't misunderstand me either, I am NOT saying that this system is wrong, in fact, I can see a number of benefits to it, however, where it fails is in the use of expert oversight. For example: When someone nominates an article for deletion why doesn't an experienced editor, or admin, look at it first to verify that all WP policies for deletion have been followed? And if they haven't, remove the deletion tag and tell the nominator to redo it. With everything I've read regarding WP policies, why aren't editors made to tag articles for improvement instead of nominating them for deletion first? Are there ANY experts here who actually look at whose nominating articles for deletion and comparing their nominations (as a percentage) against those articles they've tagged for improvement? And again, please don't misunderstand me here, as I know that without those who are looking out to make sure articles meet WP policies, this place couldn't function. But that doesn't give some of them the license to act as zealots, even if they believe they are doing the right thing. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , one of the corollaries of the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, that anyone can contribute, is that anybody can comment, and that only the consensus can judge, not just experts,and that anybody can make the rules, and only the consensus in each individual case can decide whether we will follow them. . There was never any intention to make WP an   consistent expertly edited encyclopedia -- we are rather an experiment based upon the very different principle of crowdsourcing. It has certain advantages in coverage and diversity of viewpoints--it has certain disadvantages in terms of scholarship and accuracy.  That the world seems to be increasingly relying upon it is an unexpected effect of the broad coverage; none of us who understand it think it is that reliable,or that it will ever be --00though it is considerably improved beyond where it  was at the start, 15 years ago.
 * I've been working here on deletion and inclusion practice primarily for 8 years now: all I can do is predict what is likely to happen,and even with this experience, my predictions are often wrong. In terms of what I consider absolute errors, not just misjudgements,  we reject about 10% of the articles we should accept, and accept about 15% of the ones we should not. (I think most experienced people would agree more or less with the numbers, though they would undoubtedly use different articles as examples.   We will do   better only when a substantially greater of skilled people in various subjects join, and not only write articles, but participate in the discussions. The basic psychological requirements for doing  this is to not get too concerned over the times your good arguments are simply not accepted.   DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Talkpage stalking - I visited the AFD's to take a look, Cray article as it stands was not sourced well enough to demonstrate GNG let alone the specifics of Creative. The others are either clear passes, or ambiguous enough to me I wouldn't opine. (I know nothing about architecture for example so couldn't say anything about the sources used there.) Getting some pushback on the Cray AFD but I think it's due to lack of experience with wikipedia policies rather than expertise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I don't understand your saying Fred Cray is "not sourced well enough to demonstrate GNG" as it compares to WP policy for creative professionals that says notability is established by the artists works being "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" and his lead directly references 4 of them, plus his NYT review. I'm confused here, what am I missing? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * DGG makes several excellent points, but two I would like to echo: 1. Wikipedia isn't designed to be the most accurate, although it is reasonable accurate when it comes to core articles (geography, biology, chemistry, etc). and 2. We make mistakes and articles are deleted or kept that should not have been. That is unavoidable.  While Wikipedia isn't a democracy, our system of consensus is a cousin to democracy.  This means that an admin closing an AFD generally gives extra weight to votes that are particularly persuasive, but in general, each vote counts more or less the same: Expert or novice.  The advantages and disadvantages have already been discussed.  As DGG said, we really didn't think Wikipedia would become what it has become when it was started.  I registered 10 years ago after playing around as an IP for a year.  Never in my wildest dreams did I think that it would go from "project" to "#1 info source on the web".  Even my friends, I tell them to not rely on the text too much but instead use it as an overview, and use the citations as a place to research from.  For that, Wikipedia excels, and it is why sources are so important.  Still, we will never achieve the level of accuracy that Britannica has.  However, We will be a broader and more inclusive encyclopedia, and that has value.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and  Words are failing me now as to how to exactly respond to what I can only describe as the best WP tutorial anyone could have ever written. So profound is this imparted knowledge of yours, in fact, I'm creating a new section on my talk page to include every word, and in the future will refer to it, and maybe to others too, as the greatest guide to this place. Thank you, both of you, your wisdom imparted to me here will not be wasted. Picomtn (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis is a wise old wizard. North America1000 19:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal
Hi Here is the information they wanted deleted from the Sorcha Faal article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe you can put it back in, but if you do, watch how fast it will disappear:

In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:

In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.

Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса—‌Википедия and Trud with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie" and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in the middle of this edit fest, as then I'm involved and that is what I need to avoid. It isn't a topic I prefer to edit with anyway. My roll was simply to explain policy, something that I'm supposed to understand. Even if I wasn't an admin, I don't speak Russian and wouldn't want to get knee deep in bad Google translations to fix the article. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You arb now?
Sorry for the snarkiness of the headline, but you might want to move this to some other section not reserved for arbs. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'm at work, wasn't looking close enough at the headers. I'm not an Arb case expert, I forgot we plebs have to drink from our own water fountain.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've been looking forward to the 4D ArbCom for some time now, y'know? You, DGG, Doug, and Drmies. If you want to give it a run, you wouldn't have to number yourself among the rest of us. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. I'm way too busy, but more importantly, I simply have no desire for the position, even if I could actually win an election.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis is a wise old wizard. (intentional wise-ass comment) North America1000 11:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis is no more than a crazy old man. And a tired one.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL (literally) North America1000 22:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Picomtn
Looking at User talk:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/sf I think she (Picomtn, not Natalie) may be beyond saving, but if you think you can do anything to help her please do. She used to come to my page a lot for advice and I tried to help her. I never expected this sort of reaction and the accusations against other editors at the Sorcha Faal talk page. Doug Weller talk 05:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As a favor, I've left a message and will follow up. The article topic is rather fluffy stuff, and I don't see two articles worth of material there, but some people are quite determined for reasons unknown to me. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't understand how all the two article thing began, but I've only had a marginal interest and was drawn into it by Picomtn asking me for help. Doug Weller  talk 19:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes two of us. I opted to not get involved in actual editing, I think standing by the sidelines offering guidance is a better role for both of us.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I too was asked, and independently came to the same conclusion.  DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Saw your update as well. You are a very special lady and consistently kind, Gerda. You're one of the very few people here who I would love to share a meal with and learn about in the "real world". Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Same person
See. Following some om my edits at Talk:Time travel and pointing to Time dilation. Also pinging - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same guy. Blocked and reverted the screed on the archive page, which isn't supposed to be edited anyway. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx. I rolled back the remainder of their edits. - DVdm (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it takes us admin a day to catch up to what is going on. We may have the tools, but we have to be very careful and very sure before using them. I appreciate the patience.  Now I will recognize him and it will be faster to protect/revert/whatever.  We just want to quietly do allt his via WP:RBI so we aren't accidentally rewarding bad behavior.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had thought about sending emails to the three of you, but then decided to do it in the open anyway. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What?
Can you please explain how in the world I have "unclean hands" ??? Like diffs and all? Obviously, biased editors showing up to WP:AE and throwing around random accusations to support their buddies - that's expected. But for an admin to repeat that nonsense? I'm genuinely flabbergasted. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep all AE discussions at AE, but the short of it you are doing plenty of reverting and you can be quite blunt at times yourself, although not in this particular case. The comment you are reporting at AE isn't AE grade filing material VM, you know that.  It is rude and unnecessary but you aren't a dainty little newbie that needs a "safe zone" from a single statement.  As someone suggested, you might be right on the content, but you need to start an RFC and do it the old fashioned way, build a consensus by putting more eyes on it.  That would probably be effective.  Bringing a problem to AE too late IS a problem, so is bringing it too early.  Regardless, an RFC is the best solution because it really is a legitimate content issue, much more than a behavioral one, at least at this point. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * VM's calling an entire article "garbage" seems quite blunt to me - and tagging that entire article with a npov tag without providing the required talk page explanation looks like throwing a tantrum after not getting your way. I have no problem with VM initiating a RfC, as long as it has reasoning in it more substantial than just a casual dismissal of sources as "crap". And if it is to do with actual sources rather than content from them, maybe the Reliable sources noticeboard should also be used. It was the lack of substance in VMs argument for the exclusion of sources that I was calling "crap", and I was using that word in a direct response to his use of the same word. However, I understand that my brisk wording could be seen as rude and aggressive on the surface, and it should have been accompanied by (or just replaced with) reasoning why I felt VM's position was at fault. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is how we move forward... Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting an I-Ban
Whats the correct procedure for a no-fault two-way interaction ban? WP:IBAN doesn't say "How". I have asked at User talk:Moonriddengirl for one but she doesn't seem as active as I expected. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AN is the venue for all interaction bans. "No fault" is a novel idea, but generally speaking, all community sanctioned bans should start there.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Look at this edit, The same person again? Invisible ( Talk ) 05:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Favonian did a range block, hopefully that will stop it. There are some CIR issues at stake, I think. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

unreferenced
Hi The village article Ratkal moved to unreferenced due to no cite in 2012,I added reliable cite to article and improved, Can you check and what is the procedure to remove unreferenced from article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangappadyamani (talk • contribs) 01:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are confident that the sources are reliable (ie: they pass the test at WP:RS, then it is acceptable to just remove them yourself. If someone puts them back, then you will need to talk to them about it on the article talk page.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Impact
Better late than never! And again: an invitation to pass it where you notice impact, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week awards
I have decided to no longer facilitate the Editor of the Week awards. I know you are no longer involved but I needed to "turn the keys" over to somebody and you seemed like the best, most interested party. Perhaps can help find a replacement. He has always been ready with a helping hand and advice when I needed it. The accepted nominations number about 16 editors which is the most ever. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  03:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * is more than qualified, and I would hope he would consider it. To be honest, he would be my hand picked choice as well due to his participation and experience.  I appreciate your work on the program and I know others do as well, but I understand that after a couple of years, you might be ready for other things.  For me, it is the one jewel that came from the Project.  The Project still has hope, but not with me at the head.  I wanted to start something and let others take the lead, but that never happened.  It would be a shame if we lost this one program that does make a difference.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. You don't realize that I was your replacement at WER and I did the best I could (never recognized, it seems, from what you say above. But that's neither here nor there at this point. Good luck in your future endeavors and in your life. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do then. I've backed off the Project because I feel that matters beyond my control made it lose focus, and I never wanted to be "in charge" there.  Or anywhere.  Simply being an admin is more than I want many days.  I piddle some here, but real life has been a lot more interesting as of late, with trying to move back into town, a new girlfriend (who is way too sexy for me but she doesn't know it), and the business taking off.  I've avoided getting bogged down with large project here because my real life is finally hitting its stride.  But I can understand your frustration.  Whatever you do, seek happiness, and I hope you find it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Although there are a number of issues with my taking on this task (not the least of which is that my views on the award are out of synch with others), the most important problem is time. I cannot at this point commit to taking on any significant tasks with Wikipedia. I have essentially been an unretained editor for a while, with the reasons captured on one of the Editor retention project pages as well as User:Isaacl/Community, but right now the amount of spare time I have to offer is very little. I will think about who might be a good replacement; maybe one of the stalwarts who returned recently to nominate worthy editors? isaacl (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is for Worm That Turned, though I'm not clear if there is any interest in taking on a bigger role in the Editor of the Week recognition. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should ask to see if he would want to be the "backbone" of the effort? John Carter (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He is more than qualified, and perhaps he can make something where I failed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear; I was only speaking of someone to facilitate the Editor of the Week recognition. I don't see this as something where you failed; it has been a moderate success (though it did not succeed in building a community around the recognition, which is why Buster7 has been left running it for years). isaacl (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you were clear, I was referring to WER in general when speaking of personal failure. Actually, Buster's efforts are what kept the lights on. Retention is a difficult topic and there was enough political blowback for simply letting people openly opine that it felt like censorship, which is why I eventually faded away.  Sometimes it seems like we are not allowed to be critical of Wikipedia at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you all to think of me, but I just don't have that sort of interest in Wikipedia any more. A number of factors have meant that I spend less time trying to steer Wikipedia, and more time doing stuff I enjoy, like writing about interesting topics. I started this year embroiled in an Arbcom case, and to wipe that stench off, I've helped write 11 good articles. I intend to keep on that much more pleasant tack, and whilst I approve of the Editor of the Week subproject (and was quite happy to throw a bunch of names that way), I just don't have the energy or perseverance to manage it, sorry. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Long story short, I'm in a holding pattern until someone moves out of a house I am buying, 50 miles away. My stuff has been packed 18 months, then I have to get this house ready to sell, something I've been working on but too many boxes are in the way.  Starting soon, I'm going to be very scarce while I move, unpack, setup a real home, setup the old studio, clean and paint this house, etc.  I may be absent for days or weeks at a time.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Dennis, Just wanted to say that I hope the move goes well. These are always fraught times as Susie and I know and you will be in our thoughts. Look forward to seeing you around Wikipedia afterwards. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate. Once this one is sold, I will *finally* be on way towards a normal life, then living 10 minutes from work and 10 minutes from a very nice lady who has taken a fancy to me.  Living like this for 18 months can't be put into words.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Dennis: If performing interior painting, use a semi-gloss! North America1000 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'm doing painting, two double sized garage doors, a couple of doors, the entire sunroom including ceiling... The color I picked is a dead ringer for a couple of spots that needed touching up in the bathroom, same sheen as well, so I dodged having to paint the whole bathroom. The rest is all brick and aluminum/vinyl eaves, and there is no way I'm going to go paint the barns.  I've been tearing down extra fencing, going through gallons of weedkiller (I buy jugs of concentrate, mix it 4x recommended strength.  Screw the planet, I have poison ivy to kill) and the entire basement flooded due to a clogged drain, now fixed, but I get to repair the basement.  Fortunately, I know how to do all of this, from sheetrock to framing, but it still takes time.  Precious time.  Home today, and I get a text, so about to call a customer and sell them some UV bulbs.  I just don't get much of a break, and I come here when I do.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two words: sump pump, or five words, uninterrupted power source sump pump. For paint, you can spray, which is easier, or roll, which typically looks nicer = more curb appeal. Never heard of sheetrock, but I've heard of drywall. That kind of work is kind of like softball; more fun with beer. You oughta move to Colorado... Cheers, North America1000 01:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any "gloss" paint is for bathrooms or kitchens. (Steam from shower and cooking). My money is on flat or eggshell. The gloos-ier the paint the more noticeable any imperfections on the wall. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  02:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey DB: Yeah, eggshell is good for indoor living areas, living rooms, etc. Also, burn the fences. Or leave them in place. RIP WP:WER? North America1000 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't about RIP, it is about needing new management. I don't have the time or the heart for it, and it appears neither does Buster. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been reducing involvement in WikiProjects, such as at WP:TAFI, despite the obvious advantages of their existences. North America1000 15:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Try . He was a big help and an early contributor of solid nominations. I'm sure both Isaacl and I can guide him thru the early orientation process. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  20:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternately, I think User:Gerda Arendt, who is already doing something substantially similar, might be willing to combine efforts in some way.John Carter (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda had some philosophical differences with how it is done, she and I had talked about it at length and she noted she wasn't right to help out then. I'm not sure if anything has changed since then.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (I typed at the same time:) Before Dennis set EotW up he asked me about combining, - I explained that Precious is limited to the viewpoint of QAI (aka cabal of the outcast), trying to give the prize to users who share the ideas and values of the project (at least to some extent) and who don't oppose its members. I recently found help in giving, and I am more open to anybody passing Precious without much restriction, just updating the list, please. I have no time to do more myself. - After edit conflict: some things changed but my free time is rather more limited. Like your phrase "philosophical differences ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Respect and love, Gerda, as always. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Same, Dennis. Best wishes for your move! Remember that we talked about Farmer Brown. Look ;) (some things changed, some even to the better) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

break

 * Anything I can do here?  Jim Car  ter  09:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Yes, Jim. As you can see from the above I will no longer be facilitating the Editor of the Week Award. I thought you might be willing to take over the responsibilities of the project. The Accepted Nomination Queue is full and should last till the Fall. All the other peripheral stuff like the "Eddyboxes", "Hall of Fame" and "Recipients Response" are also part and parcel of the task and are in place. Give it a try. You will probably like it!  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  12:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention for perhaps a fellow facilitator. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Together the Carter Brothers, John and Jim, (I know...they most likely have never met in person) have contributed 21 nominations so they are good choices. Worm contributed 12...also a good choice. Before he retired a few years ago had contributed 7; maybe he might be convinced to help.  made 10 and assisted with chores for a bit before he took on clerking duties.   No one else that is not an administrator comes to mind. I contributed 37. There have been probably 120 editors that have nominated another editor...above and beyond the repeaters mentioned. I'm confident someone will step forward and take the keys to the EotW workshop. It's been a nice place to work.  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to mention that I appreciate 's work that may have not been noticed, specifically, awarding the 100,000 edits barnstar to users. (No "editcountitis" here, I perform a lot of automated edits, such as deletion sorting, relistings, etc.) Awards and accolades such as Editor of the Week are important in the Wiki-world to recognize people's contributions and encourage a supportive environment amongst ourselves. Plus, the graphic design of the stars is often visually pleasant to view. . I'd love to voluneer for EOTW, but my editing availability is waning. I do like WP: WER, and hope that WP:EOTW activities continue. Here Comes Sunshine. North America1000 09:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Jim Carter asked me why I stepped aside. One of the recent EOTW's, ]] has been teaching me the proper way to create biographies. WPA muralists is an interest of mine. Last year I created a list of ""Women in Red" muralists and Susun has graciously taken under her wing for flight training and article creation. I'm still a supportive member of WER and I'm confident that someone will come forward and take the wheel and move us closer to our goal. WER was never a failure...it just lost its way for a moment. It has all the potential to be a success and make Dennis a "proud wiki-papa".   <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Buster, thanks for pinging. I'm happy to be a temporary stop-gap facilitator until at least September, but past that, I'm afraid I don't think I'll have enough time to do anything consistently. (Also, clerking for arb and for SPI kind of take a lot of time.) Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kevin. "U da man!" I'm 1/2 an hour from leaving the city till Tuesday. Why don't we forego the Award this Sunday and I'll brief you when I get back. Its easy enough but there are a few steps in the process. And, when you start I or Issacl are never more than a ping away. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Lame false accusation of "vandalism" by uninformed "admin."
First of all, where do you get the lame idea (you used it on me, so if you don't want to be thought of as WP:uncivil by being a hypocrite for using that term on me, then you won't complain that I was "wrong" to use it on you in the same way) that just because a person edits using more than one IP address it means they're "socking" (or even implicitly, the way you worded it)? Haven't you ever seen those notices that a given IP address is shared? Haven't you even placed some of those notices? So for example, maybe I go several hours without being online. Well then, for whatever reason, my ISP gives that address to someone else. Then when I come back and edit again, they've reassigned me a new IP. For all I know I could have a new one now. Do you assume that's my "fault" or something, so you're just gonna assume someone has an ill intention when that happens?

Secondly, where do you get the lame idea (see disclaimer above; if you can use it and not get in trouble, then I should be able to too) that just because someone has warred against someone who was also warring, and the first person was correcting punctuation, that that edit is somehow "vandalism" just because it was done by an IP editor rather than a user-named editor?

Thirdly, where do you get the lame idea that those edits should not be made for some reason just because a named editor prefers them to be the incorrect way? Including: why shouldn't a redundancy be removed just because one of your special "preferred editors" like it better the redundant way for some weird reason?

174.23.99.151 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Which article are you talking about? Mentioning it is the only way that people can evaluate your claim. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And while he's at it, he might want to read an essay I started WP:IP addresses are not people. As for preferential treatment to accounts vs. IPs, I'm afraid you have presented exactly zero evidence, just a rant. I've got over 50k edits, so there is a lot to fish through.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be what he is talking about. That is on the same network and my most recent activity on that network. I called it a lame edit war, not vandalism, so maybe it is something else. I dunno.  Either way, the complaint dept. is at WP:AN, since you haven't given me enough to know what you are even talking about. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah this is it, when I semi-protected the page.  That is a standard procedure when someone is committing sockpuppetry. Blocking this one as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

IP block needed ASAP
The IP you commented on has just continued the edit war. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and left a note on the IPs talk page. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up
As you commented on Sfarney's earlier request to WP:AE concerning my editing, I thought I should let you know that I've posted an enforcement request concerning Sfarney's editing. It's at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a note there. Since I warned them just 4 or so days ago, I'm a bit hesitant to jump on sanctions unless the pattern continues past that warning.  I won't stop another admin, but I want more input.  As I state there, I don't have high hopes, the editor probably means well but really has blinders on when it comes to interpreting policy, and clearly has a preconceived idea of how Scientology should be portrayed here.  If the pattern continues, past that warning, I don't think there is any question that a topic ban will be the result.  Intensity isn't your friend when it comes to DS areas, as you know. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Tamil Panar marke for deletion
Hi Dennis I had started the page as a stub since some pages were refering to the wrong the page with the word Panar in the title. But have since then added peer-review scholarly references to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE
Dennis, you say you gave a 'fairly detailed warning' less than a week ago. Can you link to that? I am trying to establish that the editor has been formally alerted under Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Unless your notice to Sfarney is earlier, I think this post, warning Prioryman, establishes that Sfarney was aware as of May 20. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the one. I didn't think to look to see if he had been given the DS warning, bad assumption on my part.  I guess at this point that is all we can do is do the official template.  In hindsight, I should have done so then, although it we would still be here.  That doesn't stop anyone from taking action outside of AE, but I'm still inclined to give him a little rope since I did give him that warning.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Puffmuffin
Re Puffmuffin's posting of links that contain viruses - IMHO, this was a deliberate act. Do the rules allow for an instant block, or must we warn first? Such actions are certainly not what would be expected from an editor who is here to add to the encyclopedia. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was intentional. The website hasn't been edited in 2 years, is on a blog platform and probably hasn't had the software updated, and was probably pwned by a script.  The site isn't a reliable source from what I can tell, and shouldn't be used for anything serious, even if it didn't have the ransomware/virus, but I have no real reason to think they did this on purpose.  Many others have used this same website for links (now all removed).  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your hatting of the AE appeal at AN
FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=606947133#Appeals_and_modifications allows people to appeal on AN194.40.144.21 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, thanks for the heads up. I'm not used to seeing them there and there is a strong preference for using WP:AE, but you are correct.  I reverted myself. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ancient


Hey Dennis and Dennis' page watchers: Check out List of ancient dishes. Better yet, chip in to improve it. Cheers, North America1000 20:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, very adventurous article, but with good sourcing and filling out will actually be very useful. We are what we eat, and what we eat tells a lot about the times we live in.  I wish I had more time, like I always do, but the first question that came to my mind was "what did the ancient military's eat?"  These guys were on the trail all the time and had to eat different stuff, just like American cowboys had a very different diet because they lived on the trail, or modern militaries eat MRE/C-rats, etc.  Since militaries were ubiquitous back then, I wonder if that is worth a section. Regardless, that is more than a food article, that belongs in the ancient culture groups. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See, now I wish I could do a military food stand alone article that spans known history... Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cursory searches aren't providing much, but they're just cursory searches. This book source doesn't provide anything, but the page itself has a groovy look to it, like a 60s concert poster... North America1000 05:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if anyone finds "ancient" to be boring, check out the relatively new List of street foods. North America1000 05:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if anyone finds "ancient" to be boring, check out the relatively new List of street foods. North America1000 05:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if anyone finds "ancient" to be boring, check out the relatively new List of street foods. North America1000 05:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit warrior is back
User:Seth Red Star is almost certainly the same editor as the two IPs you blocked recently based not only on their edits but also on the fact that one of the IPs noted a similar name as being theirs in an edit summary. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming they are the same, and odds are pretty good, he created the account after the IP block had expired, 48 hours. At a minimum, this will make it easier to get them to talk and contribute in a more collaborative fashion, and make them a bit more accountable.  So in short, he isn't currently doing anything wrong.  Hopefully it will stay that way, and I would encourage trying to work with him to keep it that way.  He might simply have been a rookie IP making mistakes.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but have you seen their edits!? It's a direct continuation of the edit wars on several articles, with no attempt at discussion whatsoever. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just looked at a couple of articles and didn't see that many edits in row. Let me look closer.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I managed to sample the least offensive edits the first time, which is my error. Just got home, must have gotten in too big of a hurry.  I blocked him a week.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I reported it to WP:AN3 at the same time as I thought you were done with this (and I had also spotted a WP:3RR violation), sorry about that. You may want to go ahead and mark it as done now to save other admins some time. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I did mark it. Sometimes I miss things, I don't mind being poked a bit and told so when I'm wrong. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
 * 2) DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * 3) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
 * 4) For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
 * 5) Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
 * 6) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

General question, then...
It has been determined that the user is NOTHERE, and was indeffed. The article failed AFC and was userfied. It is therefore in the userspace of a now indeffed user, and it is unlikely that anyone else is going to work on it. It is demonstrable that thre article was being used as a BLUDGEON in NMUSIC - it was cited as a "test case" for three separate discussions on changing the guidelines specifically so that it would be included in the encyclopedia, as well as being used to say that editors at AFC and AfD were wrong, and that everyone else reads GNG wrong. So given that it doesn't meet GNG and was being used in a POINTY manner, what would be your suggestion to request removal of a disruptive page of this nature from WP? MSJapan (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then it needs to go to WP:MFD. Simply put, admin are not authorized to speedy delete for the reasons you gave.  Speedy is only for a very limited number of circumstances, particularly when it is in user space.  I'm not saying it should be kept (or deleted), I'm saying that WP:CSD is the most strict and most narrowly defined way we have to delete material and if it doesn't pass one of those reasons listed on the CSD page, it is abuse of the admin tools to delete it knowingly.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dennis could you semi Operation Barbarossa

 * for a couple of days. A well known banned user is causing temporary chaos. Cheers! Simon Irondome (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Semi for 90 days. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate! Irondome (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Quetta
Hi. In the article Quetta in the version of the article you restored, the population in the infobox is given as 2,000,000 which is unsourced. Please fix it to 1,000,000 because of the figure mentioned in Demographics section. Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively, the sourced figure of 842,410 can be used (mentioning the year the estimate is for). In any case, the unsourced 2,000,000 number must be replaced. Khestwol (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I really can't start monkeying around without doing my own research, then at that point I'm involved with the article and can't administrate it. There may be other inaccuracies as well, but we blame the people who were edit warring and forced a Full Protection.  When an article is restored in order to Full Protect it, it is always at the WP:WRONGVERSION.  The article protection will expire in a day or two and then anyone can change it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ray Combs hyphen edit warrior
Hi Dennis. You said here to notify you if this happens again. Well, take a look at, they're back with their disruptive edit warring. Could you please block them if you're online. Thanks Sro23 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another hyphen warrior? Recently User:Henry Mazzer, who was edit warring to put a hyphen into the word email, turned out to be a sock of Evlekis. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried everything I could to talk Evlekis to just follow policy, many conversations, but some people just can't get along. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultimate (sport) protection and vandalism
Hi,

I have followed and edited this page for years.

The [] section was mostly well known details known for most players. But missed references.

Instead of marking it with "references missing" tag, some *anonymous* editor blanked the most of the strategy section whole sale. and explained his vandalism with "(WP:PROVEIT)"

I suggest making the entry for registered users only, so that vandalism will not happen again. References tags were there. But it will take time to fill in all.

BTW, if you look deeper into the entry history, there were many vandalism efforts before. But mostly there were too transparent. This anonymous vandalism sounds "legitimate" but it is vandalism all the same.

thanks a lot Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , please note that removing unsourced info isn't vandalism. See WP:VANDAL.  Technically, the responsibility is on those that want to include it.  That said, removing contentious information in a way that is disruptive and not talking about it, well that is disruptive and should be avoided.  Removing info that is pretty mundane instead of using the talk page or tagging it is just lame, and yes, disruptive.  I'm just saying you need to avoid the "vandal" tag unless it specifically fits the definition given in that policy, to prevent confusion.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Term usage was incorrect.
 * Can you still help, please?
 * 1) protect page from unregistered users. If someone wants to argue, remove or whatever, he should leave an address etc. anonymous contentious editing isn't helpful.
 * 2) restore the edit warred very very old section, along with the latest added tag for reference needed.
 * I am asking you because you handled it. There might be other venues, but I hope you will be nice enough to care for it yourself :) Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Right now, it is protected from ALL users. You first need to establish a clean consensus on what should or shouldn't be on the front page and get the sources for it.  THEN when the protection expires, modify the article to that consensus, and only then can we consider other options.  If the consensus says the IP is right, then so be it.  But I can't just semi-protect the page to exclude the one IP editor, that is against policy.  Again, once you have a consensus, if he edit wars against that consensus, then an admin can do something, but until then, no one is "right" because there isn't a discussion on the talk page that concludes what should be there.  Admin can not use the tools to take sides, nor can be dictate the content. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)