User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 40

Whatever the reason you need to take a break...
...I hope it serves you well. BMK (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath!
Hi Dennis. As you wanted in the noticeboard, I started a polling in Talk:Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification and invited two other users. So two of us wanted 2 pictures and one user not. If you let, we can add the two pictures.Sarbaze naja (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again. The IP will make trouble for us. It doesn't care the polling!! What is your decision?Sarbaze naja (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of bioinformatics companies
The editnotice is on the title blacklist, so no users other than sysops and TEs can edit it. Hence, the protection level on this page is redundant. Thanks. ''Small follow-up, didn't mean for that to come off as abrupt. I'm in the middle of an ongoing scrub of the editnotices and making fixes here and there when I see them. Decided to ping you about this one I found. Anyway, thanks, hope everything's going well :) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 23:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 00:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)''
 * Just discovered your buro board post. I'll go to RFPP, sorry to bother you. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 00:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Rosenthal image
Sorry for the misunderstanding Dennis Brown. I was asked to put up the image by his team. I was not and i'm pretty sure his team was not aware that we were violating wikipedia policy. I will inform them of this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannaman201 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That does violate policy because it is promotional in nature. Wikipedia doesn't allow promotion, it is an encyclopedia, not a social network.  I understand you didn't mean to violet, that is why I told you, several times.  Farmer Brown (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sfarney Amendment request: Scientology
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology amendment request
A request in which you were a listed party has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

request 3 userfications
Would you please userfy the three pages covered by Articles for deletion/Campestre 105 Torre C, Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre B, and Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre A to my user-space? Richard3120 kindly noted the existence of a Spanish language Wikipedia article showing all three in the top 25 tallest buildings in El Salvador (at User talk:Doncram. Although we may just use selected info in creating a List of tallest buildings in El Salvador page now, would you please provide the full versions with edit history intact?  To enable restoring one or more of the articles, if we find additional sources, or to enable them to be changed to redirects with possibilities, with proper edit history in place if editors in the future restore them.

I do think closing as "delete" was not correct, but we can get to where we should have gotten IMO, anyhow, with a few more steps. Thank you for acknowledging my position and offering to userfy, in your close. -- do ncr  am  00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that we don't always agree, as long as we can voice that disagreement peacefully, I'm happy. Give me a few minutes and I will get them moved, then ping you here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have userfied as:
 * User:Doncram/105 Campestre Torre A
 * User:Doncram/105 Campestre Torre B
 * User:Doncram/Campestre 105 Torre C
 * Removed AFD templates but left everything else intact, which means you probably need to comment out or remove the cats. I didn't bother with the talk pages, assumed not much was there, just ask if you really need them. Headed off to bed now. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back
It's been too long. The place has been falling apart in your absence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Dennis, Really pleased to see that you are back. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Awesome to see your datestamp. Welcome back! BusterD (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Very kind of you all. My time is still very limited and can't say when it will be that I return to truly regular status, but I think I can help a little here and there.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back, Dennis! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness. Now I can stop looking at AN/I. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * After the recent rash of retirements, this is good news. Welcome back. Eric's back too, just keeping it quietly in mainspace.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Good to see you back, Dennis. I refuse to accept there is anything called "truly regular status"! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what regular or retired really means. I have to admit my perspective on Wikipedia has changed, but as long as I'm here, I will try to do good things, whether I give up the bit for good or just toggle back and forth as editor and admin.  I do find it hard to just edit with this account, for whatever reason. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eddie Grey
Hi, you deleted Eddie Grey (Composer) page and I have a reliable source per the notable guidelines. How can I get it back up and running? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6198:C00:D898:E99D:8AC9:83FC (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The place to appeal any AFD decision is WP:DRV. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jobas
I think your closing of this discussion at AN was too premature. There are a lot of problems in Jobas' editing and this is the central issue of that discussion. Besides, his history on Wikimedia Commons is a testimony of his behavior and is directly related to Wikipedia, as through a variety of his sockpuppets he has added those maps to dozens of Wikipedia articles. I am not related in any way to the users who, before me, criticized Jobas' activity here or on WC.--151.82.105.112 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I couldn't give a damn about Commons, as I said there. All you did was talk about Commons and making sweeping accusations. If you aren't going to calmly present a set of diffs, a few per claim, then don't file at an admin board.  I am NOT going to go dig through all his contribs to try to prove you right.  You have to present enough evidence that the claims are obvious.  Otherwise, it gets closed before it degrades into a shouting match.  I don't care if you are an IP, an admin or Jimbo, the same rules apply.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Re closed This
This is the first time I've ever closed a discussion. Did I get it right and was my language reasonable? Glad to see you back. Hope life is good for you. John from Idegon (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. Language was a little strong since you were closing a single comment really, not a discussion, so beware they might take it personal.  There isn't a right or wrong way on these.  Often, I will just let it go unclosed, let someone feel they had the last word.  For some reason, some find that comforting.  If I did close it, I might has said the same thing only milder, like "Probably better to just drop the stick as consensus was fairly solid here." or "Discussion is already closed on near unanimous discussion." Same thing, softer tone, more likely to damp down drama rather than feed it.  Same reason I took the method I took to close the discussion.  So, not a criticism, just information for the future.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked. Harshness in language probably was contributed to by the OP'S harshness in an edit summary reverting an archiving of the discussion,  but your right, peaceful is better. Thanks, Dennis. Wikipedia is a better place when you are around. John from Idegon (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is one of the challenges of being an admin, we are expected to keep an even tone when closing. Sometimes a snide remark or heavy tone is the right answer, but usually it's about keeping the peace.  And thank you for the compliment.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we clone you?
If you don't know which edit prompted this question, well, that's part of the point.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I told one of our Arbs earlier this week on a different clone comment: I've seen a lot of sci-fi and it always looks better on paper ;) Thanks.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Question re: ANI comment
Just curious, do you have a rough memory how long ago of the prior discussion you're recalling? I'm not disputing, just trying to recall myself a prior issue where you commented. I tried searching my past posts at ANI and AN, and I found an AN thread (here) from Nov 2015, but no comment from you. No problem if unsure how long ago, just thought I would ask. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, our search tools are a embarrassment. We can fly editors around on a sponsorship, or waste a million dollars on software no one wants, but we can't search by date.  That said, after going through about 100 entries, I gave up.  I remember the incident distinctly, although it might have been at a different admin board.  I want to say 1 to 2 years ago, maybe a little longer and was about semi-protection to stop one IP address.  Regardless, I struck the comment for an inability to prove them at this time.  has provided an example below my comment there, and my gut says there are more minor examples to be found.


 * Whether Guy's example met the threshold for using semi-protection is another question. Even putting WP:INVOLVED to the side for a moment, had I seen it at WP:RFPP I would have refused for two questionable IP edits in a four day span being insufficient to pass the criteria at WP:SEMI. If I were a betting man, I would bet most admin would agree with me on that point.  This is why WP:involved is important, so we don't have to second guess motivations of admin, and all admin don't look bad due to one admin's borderline actions while arguably involved. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Arguably" is the key word here. That's why I was careful to say "This edit followed by this use of tools looks a lot like using the tools against an IP in a content dispute." I am not at all sure that the examples I picked are violations of WP:INVOLVED but I do believe that they give that appearance.


 * I really don't want to bust someone who is a productive editor for making what seem to be good-faith semiprotects, but on the other hand, I am thinking about the IP's viewpoint. Here you are, making your first few edits to Wikipedia, and the edits pretty much stink. That's pretty normal around here. An editor (rightly) disagrees with you -- in other words, a content dispute -- and your changes get reverted. Again, normal. And perhaps you act up a bit. Undesirable, but still pretty normal. Then the page gets blocked, which stops you from editing the page. Once again, nothing unusual, unless the person who protected the page is the same person who is engaged in the content dispute with you. That is not normal.


 * The way I hope this ends is with a commitment from Barek from now on to not use the tools on pages he has edited, other than in cases that everybody agrees are specifically allowed by WP:INVOLVED.


 * If I need to, I will take the time to go through Barek's edit history and find the most obvious examples, instead of just checking the first few on the list and picking two fairly weak examples pretty much at random. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If I were a betting man (but neither of us is), I'd bet that a lot of editors are grateful to see you around on the noticeboards and elsewhere. RTR Dennis, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words Mies. My time will vary due to the real world, but I'm to share some of it here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that I have made mistakes in judgement that could give the perception of abuse, and acknowledge how it could reflect on other admins. I will do my best to not do the same in the future. If you feel a community discussion is still needed, feel free to hold one. Guy Macon, you mentioned "I really don't want to bust someone who is a productive editor". Please note that I fully understand that you are acting for the good of the project, and I do not take personal offence. Feel free to proceed in whatever manner you feel is best.
 * That said, I do intend to take a break from Wikipedia. I need to decide if I wish to maintain editing here as a hobby; and if so, in what capacity. I have been questioning my future here for several months now; primarily as a result of the decay in civility. Ironically, this particular discussion has been a pleasant reprieve from that decay.
 * If there is a community review or discussion of my behavior, and if my input is needed on any questions in that process, I just ask that someone please drop me a note via the email link on my userpage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for a bigger discussion, we (and I think I speak for Guy here as well), just want to see a commitment to avoiding using the admin tools where you've used the editor tools. It isn't even about bad decisions (although I personally disagree with protection there), it is about the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined.  I don't think you are a bad guy at all, I just think you underestimated how important it is to keep a wall between editing and admin duties, even when it is an innocent thing.  I do hope you stay around. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there is no need for a bigger discussion and will strongly oppose if someone else files one. A community review or discussion would only be appropriate if we were faced with someone who refuses to even attempt to resolve this sort of thing with a friendly discussion among colleagues. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

BOL network
He reverted me again without TP discussion. I have reported him to warring noticeboard as a last resort. I do not like reporting, but this guys is not even talking. He just reverts.TouristerMan (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have it at AN3, best to let more eyes be on it. I put a pretty strong warning on his page, but it won't limit the admin at AN3 from blocking him if they feel that is the best solution.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:AN/I
Hi, Dennis. I'm not taking you to task, but this matter wasn't dropped. Truthfully, I'm glad you're taking the time to help.  Tide  rolls  21:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Some days I think half my job is just putting "official" warnings on page with the hope they will at least respond and start a dialog. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-Pecuniary Interests
Hi Dennis, can you explain why you are allowed to link to articles in which you claim not to have a pecuniary interest, but you are not willing to allow me or people who consume my works to access content for free on websites I control? Cheers, Jonathan Bishop (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've given up on helping you. Everything you claim to understand about Wikipedia is centered around how you think it affects you, with a lack of objectivity and humility that is breathtaking.  It comes across as narcissistic.  It is useless to explain why you are wrong on policy anymore.  Instead of trying to understand them, you twist them to use them as weapons, willfully ignorant of their true meaning.  You aren't interested in improving Wikipedia, only promoting yourself.  When you are gone, nothing of value will have been lost.


 * When we are ready for you at the community discussion, you will be notified on your talk page. Until then, I really have nothing to offer you.  Pearls before swine and all that.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting your comment
Here- sorry about that! I've got no idea how I managed it; I thought I was just removing the PA. I apologise in any case. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed  16:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, that is why I just restored and explained. I agree with the other part of the delete.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Bishop
You may want to full protect the page. From doing some digging there is a WP:NOTTHERAPY issue that means any replies/interaction is likely to cause more issues. Ping me if you want details. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * After reading a lot of discussion about this issue in recent days, and limiting myself to a handful of comments, I agree with Only in death does duty end, and also agree with your actions in this matter. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Policy is funny on that. I can't full protect as a preventative measure.  The semi prot and blanking is customary.  If there are any issues, it will be full protected quickly.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My interaction with User:Maxxx12345
Hey, Dennis. I think we haven't talked directly (at least truly talked) since my 2012 sockpuppet case, but I want to take the time to thank you for handling the latest WP:ANI thread Maxxx12345 started on me. This includes your kind statements about me. I've started this thread to address the "Reopening, it seems" subsection of that WP:ANI complaint, mainly because I know that you won't mind me bringing up the matter here, and because you suggested that Maxxx12345 and I work together. Simply put, I don't see how I can work with him when he is repeatedly telling falsehoods about me (I would state "lying about me," but "falsehoods" seems more polite). EEng asked why I was defending myself. I was defending myself because Maxxx12345 told falsehood after falsehood about me and people can be lazy when checking up on whether or not an editor's claims against another editor are true or false. I wouldn't want people looking at that WP:ANI thread (such as when checking up on my history at WP:ANI) and coming away with the impression that Maxxx12345 was right regarding anything he stated about me. When you talked to him in the "Reopening, it seems" subsection, everything he stated about me was and is false and is actually against the WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL section of the WP:Civility policy. For example, not only do I not have any "strong views on third wave feminism," I don't identify as a feminist (a number of editors at this site know that). And never has it been the case that "on all occasions, every single one, when a number of other editors have become involved [Maxxx12345]'s additions were welcomed and [my] accusations of issues of undue weight and POV were found to be in violation and [my] ideological input over-turned." The Editor Interaction Analyzer tool shows how many articles Maxxx12345 and I have both edited and what was stated at those articles. He's also edited as an IP, but, in the aforementioned thread, I already pointed that out. Maxxx12345 makes it seem like we've interacted plenty when we actually haven't interacted much at all. If he comes to this section telling more falsehoods, I will likely disengage. Given what was stated in the WP:ANI thread (and the closing of it), I will open up a WP:ANI report on Maxxx12345 if I continue to see him telling falsehoods about my views and/or behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 Peter 2: "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." In other words, let your actions speak for themselves, and stop worrying about nasty things people say about you.  E Eng  03:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * EEng, I try, and I ignore false accusations enough, but they can be damaging on Wikipedia, especially given that they usually remain in the edit histories.


 * On a side note: The Gone Girl (film) article is obviously missing from that Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Accusations in edit histories have no meaning if they don't go anywhere. Let it go.  E Eng  03:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * EEng, if there was an editor who repeatedly made false accusations about you across different Wikipedia talk pages, how would you handle that? Would you allow it to continue simply because what the editor is stating is not true? Would you defend yourself, which is a common reaction at this site and is why the other party is supposed to be notified of a WP:ANI complaint? How would you interact with that editor going forward? Look at that discussion at Talk:Gone Girl (film). I disengaged there, yes, but there was an editor to briefly speak for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had that happen. I've mostly stood back and trusted others to see the truth of the situation, and commented only where some detail was being misunderstood. As far as future interactions (e.g. back on the article talk page) I just kept my arguments simple and direct while he sputtered and TLDRed. Eventually (a) other editors involved in the article came to understand what was going on, and (b) he got tired and went away. I do have a lot of patience, however.  E Eng  05:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, EEng. I'll keep the notion of having more patience in mind. I've certainly been working on being "more patient" this year at Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The sock case was a mess, where I was talking into thinking you were something I knew you weren't, then my first instinct was proven right. I privately took a butt chewing over doing what a CU ended up doing anyway, with no apology.  But more on point, I don't mean working together side by side as much as simply coexisting.  Even as admin, there are one or two admin I truly don't are for, but I work with them and you wouldn't know it by how I treat them here.  Professionalism isn't easy.  It's about picking your battles, and I've seen you do fine with that before.  And when you are professional and they aren't, it's a pretty stark contrast that is easy to spot.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France
I wonder if you might consider extending your edit lock? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would say you need to request at WP:RFPP. Protection shouldn't be needed during a normal disagreement.  All it takes is self-control.  I did the one week as an emergency measure because I didn't want to block anyone, but by now, everyone should at least be working in the same direction, even if they have different ideas on the text.  Leaving it locked is unfair to users not interested in the dispute, btw; people who just want to edit peacefully. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree but some of the editors are still struggling with basic WP. I will try the rfpp as you suggest.Keith-264 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Proxy vote
I was trying to do some formatting cleanup on the Trump photo RfC when I came across these. I moved the user's comment to what I thought was the right place, but I'd prefer to let you sort out the admin strike issue as you see fit. (The user appears to be a Commons editor who uploaded one of the images.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck the vote. No proxy voting.  If you can log in, you can vote.  We never allow proxy voting as it is impossible to verify or police and ripe for easy abuse.  There is a big discussion on the user's talk page on it.  Arb may allow it at Arb sometimes, where someone is out of the country and their email can be verified by multiple people, etc. but we don't allow for content issues. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis is correct here; we never allow proxy voting or even proxy participation in discussion, except in a few very specialist areas (the only ones that spring to mind are the "arb without access to their account but who can phone another arb to verify their identity" situation Dennis mentions above, and allowing other people to post messages from blocked users in conversations which directly concern them). If any decision is so finely balanced that the participation of a single person will make a decisive difference, then chances are it's a decision which will be unworkable since it will always be open to legitimate challenge. &#8209; Iridescent 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Dennis, I get that proxy voting isn't allowed. The reason I contacted you is that after you struck the vote the user did log in to comment. See the second diff: it seems to be a response to your strike, though that's not immediately apparent because of where it was placed. I was unable to find the big discussion you mentioned on the user's talk page. Could you give a link? I'm looking at User talk:MichaelVadon. Nevermind, found it at User talk:Dervorguilla. ~Awilley (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was also canvassing concerns, that talk page probably answers most of the questions. I should have linked directly, but I'm swamped on time.  Apologies.  Don't expect to be around this weekend much either. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Linda Hunter Adams close
Hi there, I have what's maybe more a technical question than anything else. Is it not possible to close a discussion as delete but also userfy the article to an editor who requested it? Anticipating that this entry will likely end up back at AfD if re-added to encyclopedia, I'm worried it muddies the waters to close as userfy even with your note that consensus was delete. Apologies if this is just me not knowing what options are and aren't available on the admin side, or inadequately grasping the distinction between userfy and delete. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, userfy was the close, as the consensus was delete but there wasn't any objection to a very experienced editor taking control the article, and there was even chatter about it being salvageable. I suppose I could have close it a couple of different ways, but I think most people will get the jist from the close statement itself. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User rights
What does a candidate do in  the hypothethical  situation  that  trolls  are team-tagging  with  pure vengeance votes for having  been correctly  reprimanded? Such behaviour seems to me to  be a bit  schoolyardish, but  does one respond or does one just  let  it  go? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, specifically? Your CU nomination? Doc   talk  08:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If it isn't seriously changing the outcome or disrupting, I tend to ignore for as long as I can.  Trolls feed on attention, after all.  My experience has been that responding makes things worse, particularly if they are addressing me.  It is difficult for me to be more specific without more info.  Just because I talk calmly or ignore someone doesn't mean I don't secretly want to choke the stuffing out of them. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. So we'll still have to think of ways to get rid of totaly disingenuous votes art RfA and RFB and all these other elections. BTW, for 's benefit I'll just point out that on the CU/Oversighter kind of candidate commenting page, the participants erroneously believe it to be an RfA-style election and that the extra tools are accorded as some kind of meritocracy scheme. Of course they couldn't be more wrong, and if there be trolls, they would simply be discrediting themselves rather than the candidate. Arbcom simply takes all those comments as a guide for their own internal decision.

People who respond to a call for CU and Oversighters are generally intelligent and mature enough not to be bothered one way or other about the outcome. In fact like last year's Arbcom election where I only narrowly missed the threshold, I was a actually rather relieved that I hadn't been given a place after all.

Thank you both, we'll see how my meritocratic bid for being a bureaucrat in the fall will survive the beatings I'll get. In the meantime I'll go and secretly and hypothetically choke the stuffing out of a few people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't like bad votes any more than the next guy, but I don't think you can get rid of them. Often, trying to causes more disruption than the vote.  If it isn't vandalism, socking or doesn't clearly violate any policy, I've always suggested ignoring it.  Many agree, although there isn't a consensus either way.  Personally, I think you have to bend in the wind for some votes, particularly by established editors.  Not for their sake, but for your own.  Let it slide off you like water on a duck.  The closing Crat will know how to weigh it, so you haven't changed the outcome by ignoring it, nor by them posting a "bad" vote.  It doesn't bother me if there is an ugly comment or two on an RFA/B as long as it doesn't dominate the discussion.  Reverting often changes the dynamic and then the discussion is about that edit and that revert, and THAT is what undermines an RFA/B. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:David Adam Kess
Hi Dennis, I was pretty sure I knew who it was when I saw the username. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Funny. I was just about to post here asking what he makes of the odd name, edits, and obvious experience. Then I saw Bbb23's socktag. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I reported him ninja style. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC
A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Nudge ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I just haven't had anything to add. I truly have no idea what the solution is.  I also wonder if the Foundation will block any technical solution anyway.  I understand upholding principles, but they don't have to clean up the mess. As I've said before, there is a inverse relationship between how much money the Foundation has and how much fun it is to be here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not even if they are responsible for the mess? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would appear not. I've yet to have a single positive experience with them, but then again, I'm just a peasant. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Last Honest Man
Hi not emperor Dennis (The Last Honest Man told me that). Did you also see who was making a similar page. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked out the SPI page, then went and salted the page. I tried to err on the safe side with the A10, but completely understand why you G8'ed it.  Either way, it didn't belong but I didn't want to CSD more than twice without more eyes on it.  Looks like it was moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman, same person, older master.  Thanks for batting clean up.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock needs love
Your name is mentioned at Category talk:Wikipedians for Donald Trump which was created by an attention-seeker. Feel free to delete this per DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone else removed it. I usually vote Libertarian, so inaccurate anyway. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Change of block settings of User:Kingshowman
Hello, Dennis! Unfortunately, you have gave access to its talk page again, which means that if one of the socks know that the king has regained talk page access, the talk page will eventually become a bigger mess, since that king is autoconfirmed. Do you agree? NasssaNser (talk/edits) 05:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please revoke talk page access. Doc   talk  07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Muffled Pocketed  07:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * . Is this a joke? A mistake? Doc   talk  07:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's taking the piss. Why do you ask? Muffled Pocketed  07:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Typically, we leave the talk page of the master unlocked, since that is the only legit account, but since he had it removed last time I've removed it. Just a simple oversight, it defaults to not taking it away.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Block discussion of Zaostao
What is the hurry? It's been barely 6 hours since the first comment endorsing the block. Let it run for a while. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First, it wasn't an actual review, no one has requested it, some people just started saying they are supporting it. It was completely superfluous to the discussion.  Second, it was overwhelmingly one sided, so added to being superfluous, it was just taking up time and space.  If you want to formally protest it, you would normally start on Floq's talk page, then work up to a review at WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't a block review, then you shouldn't have said that the block was endorsed in the closing summary. Am I allowed to open another block review or not (assuming I want to)? If it was a review, then let it run for a while - 6 hours is not enough time. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a formal review. It couldn't have been, no one filed it, no one asked for it.  It was just a spontaneous outpouring of support, nothing more.  My close was just a reclose to cap it, it wasn't a decision by me, although obviously I put the clear consensus in the close.   If you want a review of any admin's actions, you do so at WP:AN, although it is expected you will first try to approach the admin and discuss the action with him.  Knowing the community as I do, I personally think you are wasting your time, but it is yours to waste.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am shocked
Not that you closed my ANI report, because I suppose I might have done the same in your place. But at the response to it. The last person opposing the motion even said outright that they hadn't read what I wrote? Someone suggested that I be boomeranged? For what?

I guess I'm asking for advice from a fellow admin who's been around the project as long as I have. What do you do with someone who (with a history of disrupting) is being disruptive and then brusquely dismisses your concerns when you bring them to his talk page in good faith?  A  Train ''talk 12:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for . He interjects a lot at ANI where he isn't involved, probably too much, but since the one comment isn't a policy violation, I'm leaving it alone.  And no, I don't want to see arguing by either you here either.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Inability to work with proposed mentor

 * Dennis, I am afraid I cannot work with TTTMF. I have noticed his highly negative comments personally aimed at me at the ANI, and the user obviously has animus towards me, despite my defending him and strongly criticising TTTMF's actually very problematic block record, and the behaviours shown being brought up at that venue. I sincerely felt that was a highly inappropriate venue to bring them up, but I was metaphorically spat in the face for my pains. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We started with him volunteering, so I have to go with that if I'm impartial. I understand if you don't wish to help this time.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your position Dennis, and fully respect the decision you made. I fear the mentor is unsuited for the role, and there is already a lack of confidence evident in TSD's reaction to the original mentorship offer. However the individual did volunteer first. We shall see how it pans out. I believe TSD to be a basically decent colleague, and can be helped. My main concern is him. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Hello DB. As this thread Administrators' noticeboard is closed I thought I would let you know that the person that it was about has returned as. They are taking a somewhat intriguing tack in creating (with a speedy tag no less) the same kind of essay that they were tagging before. Perhaps they are done (at least with this IP) but I thought I would make you aware of the situation. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add, I blocked them last night. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Don Salien - John Saline
Where do you get off thinking this is some kind of vandalism redirect. It was a real redirect- I was watching Jim Henson's funeral and the name came up but I heard "Don Saline" came up but I couldn't find it when I searched so I had to do a lot more research to find it. Once I found it... I added the redirect in case anyone else had the same problem. It was a completely good faith edit and should be kept. All the "vandalism" redirects are from actual nicknames of people... this is ridiculous. I'm actually trying to make wikipedia a more user firendly place and you clearly have a preconception about me that I'm never going to live down. You owe me an apology. --Dr who1975 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You have it backwards, and spelled wrong (Don Sahlin is the real guy) so that doesn't even make sense. You are bordering on getting blocked at the discussion.  That is where it needs to stay.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right I had it backwards... kind of illustrates my point that a redirect is needed doesn't it. Also, apologies for putting this on your main page instead of your talk page. That was a mistake.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why am I bordering on getting blocked at the discussion page? If that's where this needs to stay how can I discuss if I get blocked?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion page is where the discussion on the article should take place. The reason I *almost* blocked you myself is because of behavior.  Instead I just nominated the redirect.  Did you read WP:POINT?  Do you understand the policy on WP:DE?  If you don't like being here and just want to trash everyone here, why are you here pushing the limits of policy?  Just to make a point and disrupt?  Are you capable of even understanding what I'm getting at? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary
Can you please explain why you deleted this page? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary?
Did you really mean to delete Help:Edit summary as "spamming hate"? I know Wikipedia documentation is controversial, but I think this might be overkill. Rebb ing  19:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Psst! I heard you can't really delete the main page. Rebb  ing  19:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please restore this page: Talk:Gregor Strasser...
...Minus any of the IP added hate speech, of course. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * *Pats Dennis Brown on the back*. Don't let it stress you, dude. It happens; nobody is perfect. Hell, look at all the mistakes I make. That'll make you feel tons better :-P  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that is the first time I wiped out thousands of edits over many articles in one button click. That is why the database barfed when restoring.  It wasn't epic, but it was embarrassing enough that I bet you I don't make THAT mistake again.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am an idiot and I deleted stuff
The problem is now fixed. I would have fixed it earlier, I delete 3 articles, but the database barfed and preventing me from fixing for a few minutes. I'm sorry. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The database keeps barfing.This kind of thing is usually funny, except when you are the dolt that accidentally typed:

I think I have finally repaired all the damage. The logs are blue links, I will leave to others to revert his edits. So many deleted backlinks. It wasn't THAT huge, but it was the largest and most boneheaded thing I've done in the 10 years that I've been here. I need that beer now. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. FYI: K.e.coffman and myself reverted the ip added "book" edits. Kierzek (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Honest mistake, for sure! On the cusp but not quite worthy of the village stocks, I don't think :) Would you mind sharing how this happened? If there's some safeguard we could put into Twinkle, for instance, it might be worth looking into &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We've all been there. I once ran  on a production server—while my boss was giving a live demo. Miraculously, he had finished his presentation by the time I goofed, and I was able to put everything back together (nc and tar from another machine) before he found out, but I still remember the panic.  Rebb  ing  19:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem was simply a lack of blood flow to my cerebellum due to my sphincter putting pressure on my jugular veins. I meant to nuke his edits, a new script I had downloaded, and instead I had a major brain fart and D-batched them, thinking that would just nuke the edits, and instead that nukes every article.  No where near big enough for the stocks, just three pages, talk pages and a bunch of redirects, but some of the pages were large, which choked the server and slowed me down.  The faster I went, the slower the server got.  Now that it is over, even I'm laughing a bit, as no real damage was done.  That is why I started this section.  If you can't laugh at yourself....  Now I'm off to do the commute home and drink that beer that I didn't earn.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. I'll try to add some checks into both the speedy and d-batch tools, where it will require confirmation before deleting any page that has say, over 100 backlinks. I'm willing to bet your mistake was not the first of its kind and won't be the last :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There wasn't that many backlinks, it was mainly that I had deleted a large page and the server barfed on restoring a couple of times. So I'm like "hurry up!  hurry up!" and of course, that never works with software.  Nothing like that sinking feeling you just screwed up and nothing you can do about it as you watch the files disappear. I was rushed, the fault was mine, not Twinkles. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One more fixup needed! I think the edit- and move-protection of Help:Edit summary has been lost. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeez, thanks John. I didn't even think about protection.  I have definitely learned something today.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Help:Edit summary has at least 500 backlinks (not redirects). I think the number of backlinks is a good indicator that deletion might not be intentional, or at least perhaps the visibility of the page might have been overlooked &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  21:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, you know that voodoo much better than I. I just mash buttons here.  I save playing with code for Perl on for my Linux servers.  Sounds like an opportunity for an improvement though.  I'm still feeling 50% really bad, and 50% laughing at my own stupidity.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

LasTimelord
That quote is in the article? Interesting guess anyway. FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the quote marks. OS is in the loop, we will see what they say. Hmm. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cautious bunch they can be. If it was me, knowing what we know, I'd turn it down. Regardless, I hope you could reconsider the block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Email me, or if you are that convinced I erred, I'm not going to say anything if you revert, . It wouldn't be the first mistake I've made, today even.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and unblocked. That is one weird first edit, but very likely, my mistake alone.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Interesting to see what the second edit might be.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. I'm not too proud to admit a mistake.  That isn't a new editor, so yes, it will be interesting to see.  Personally, I've made enough mistakes for one day, going to go do something else besides Wikipedia.  I left a short note on their page.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the other times, but this time you were in good company :) Talk about obscure... -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus it was a pickup from me (I deleted) off of AN from a non-admin, so 3 of us. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Redact
Just as you redacted this edit, could you do the same thing for the naming of my primary account? I will also ask the user who created it as it can simply be edited, as it just needs to be removed from being visible though deleting it is better. I freely tell people what it is in private but not in public. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * email me the diffs you want redacted or just to look at. I just woke up, still a little blurry headed, no coffee yet. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

At what point...
...would PS's talkpage editing rights be removed? (Pinged to his rant this morning) Technically since he is not actually blocked you cant, but frankly if he keeps on the way he is going he is only going to make things worse for himself. And I would rather not have to keep removing blatant personal attacks. From reading his twitter/blog, this all looks like manufactured hooha anyway in order to have something to write about. Very few people are that intelligent and simultaneously capable of being that stupid. Acting that stupid to further their aims maybe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He may be talking to the CUs, who are looking. He might not be, I really don't care.  That is the only solution, however.  He chooses to edit through a VPN, so he could be editing right now if he didn't use the VPN.  Maybe there is a security reason why he can't, maybe he lives in Iran and fears for his life.  I have no idea.  That is for the CUs to deal with.  At this point, he is working towards a block but I'm not ready to pull the trigger.  His email was the real problem, there isn't any reason to harass someone.  Admin aren't pond scum, we are asked to deal with a lot of hostility, but that was over the line.  I understand a degree of venting, but we are done venting now that he has the proper info.  What he does next will decide.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=744313102&oldid=744310569 this edit]: I presume you meant to write "reliable 3rd party sources"? isaacl (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like that. Been a long week.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI/False accusation of 'death threat' by User:Signedzzz

 * Good day! I see you're active on ANI, so If I can favor you, can you please make a review of this ANI discussion? And I want to ask, is Signedzzz now absolved from actions he did just because Hijiri88 said that Signedzzz have regretted removing the talk page section supporting need of POV tags and the tag itself and will not make it again (I didn't even see any comments from Signedzzz regretting it, aside from requesting admins to block me)? How about Signedzzz disruptive behavior, non-neutral point-of-view editing, and possible conflict of interest, that were proved by links provided by me and RioHondo on ANI and were keys to really open the discussion. I hope you can give some insights and opinions regarding this one. Thank you! ~ Manila's  Poging <font color="#CE1126">Juan  10:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * is an admin and oversighter who is already involved in the case and is more than competent enough to determine the best outcome. If you are unsure of what is going on, I'm probably the last person you want, because I can't make sense of it at a glance, and it would require studying more history than I have time to at this moment.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

MidasHotel20
Could you please review and respond to the followup I have provided about this editor on this ANI thread ? It is in the final subsection where Tagishsimon requested additional evidence of a problem with this editor's removals of prefecture names. Thanks. 85.255.236.93 (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A head's up for more on ANI. 85.255.233.180 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Isle
Was this a typo or a pun? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a typo as I'm not that clever, but I think I will leave it :) Long day and I'm a terrible speller. These political articles are their own little islands, aren't they? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'll give you credit. :-) It would be even more apropos in an article like Brexit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe "I'll" would be the best spelling.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of out-of-place citation
Hi! Thank you for your comment on ANI. I know I already pinged you there, but EdJohnston's apparently not being convinced even now that there is a user conduct issue makes me think that this thread will again get archived without result (it had already veered off-topic and gone into TLDR territory before his reply to me).

So I decided to take the closest thing I currently have to a content dispute to the article talk page and see if the other user can make an effort to discuss it in an intelligible and civil manner. Could you keep an eye on how he responds to this?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It will probably have to be tomorrow. I've spent the last three hours cleaning out potentiometers, swapping out a reverb tank, and scrubbing the exterior of a Fender Stage 112SE guitar amp, an listing it on Craigslist, all while doing this stuff on Wikipedia.  After a full day of work while shorthanded.  And I've been sick for over 24 hours.  I'm going to go watch a WWII documentary on Netflix and get a mental break.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your verbiage is a little, vague. Maybe being clearer would help on the talk page.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and pings
Hi Dennis Brown. I know that personally attacking a user is not acceptable yet JuanRiley did exactly that by making an entire section to personally attack me. Normally I would let it slide, but continued to ping me to his insult section after I specifically told him to keep me out of it. And yes, as you can see he modified my discussion while pinging me again after I told him to not ping me. It's also fair to mention he did this to others as well yet continued after being taken to ANI for this type of behaviour, problematic to say the least. (N0n3up (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC))


 * Sounds like something for ANI, I'm a bit pressured on time and trying to clean up tonight. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did as you said, new section in ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Looks like they got it taken care of. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

AE thread closure
Hi Dennis,

After responding on AE about my case, I saw your closure. Well, I think it was premature because that was a very clear and obvious case of wikihounding with ridiculous nationalistic reverts like that. I think it would be wise to let it follow normal course and be resolved by consensus of several admins on WP:AE. Otherwise, I think this dispute will ultimately end up at Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the filing was very premature. I'm not saying all the edits were perfect, but the overwhelming majority of links provided were acceptable, and the primary complaint that using a blocked socks edits is against policy somehow is simply wrong.  That is not true.  There is always going to be some nationalistic editing on these articles, and you will make the article less neutral if you are too quick to ban one side. As far as AE is concerned, it is not based on a consensus of admin opinions, nor any other opinions.  Admin are free to act unilaterally, even outside of AE, and it has always been that way.  It isn't ANI or AN.  I will listen to those who disagree, but I didn't see anything that deserved a block, yet.  Sanctions aren't always the solution to a dispute.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One bit of clarification: most of the time an admin will close within the consensus, but policy doesn't require it. I know that sounds odd, but AE is a different kind of board that only hears Arb related cases.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not telling that you did something obviously wrong (exceeded your mandate or whatever). No, you did not. But after quickly looking at the diffs and knowing some participants of this complaint, I think it would be more wise to let it follow normal course, i.e. wait for a few days and allow others comment. If this remains unresolved, I would expect one of these guys to go with complaints to Arbcomm, sooner or later, and it would be best to have an AE consensus, rather than a unilateral decision at this point. But perhaps this will be resolved on AE if more people will comment. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It had already been open 48 hours and only Drmies commented, and that wasn't exactly on the merits. Plus I'm aware of  perspective on using sock edits, which correspond with mine.  There was a lack of interest, and going through all those diffs, I could see why.  Since the majority of the claims were not violations even if true, sometimes you have to push it out and let them come back and do it proper if they are that serious.  If there really is a hidden POV problem, we will see it again, no doubt.  And btw, I don't take offense to you questioning me, I'm not always "right", whatever that means in these cases, and you are always civil about it.     Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a fine balance between "enough" and "too much". This one was on the other side of it. Problem is also there are three different charges, only one of which is an AE concern--and that indirectly. If I understand it correctly the charge is that the reverts by the socks are ARBAA2 violations because the master was ... I can't find the master in that Arb decision. What is the problem we are supposed to see here, besides reverting the revert of an edit by a banned editor? Some 1R restriction? I don't see it. That edit and its summary aren't the greatest in the world, but I don't see how it's an AE matter. As for the hounding--it is possible that there is hounding there, but that's not a matter for AE, necessarily. I checked the first one: I don't know why this edit was made; there's nothing in the article history that indicates Etienne Dolet had been here before, but there may be another reason: wikihounding cases need to be made carefully, with lots of explanation, and that explanation is missing. "All these are reverts of my edits"--that's possible but there may be a valid reason for it; no lack of valid reasoning is indicated. It's just a really convoluted case--needlessly so--with at least two of the three individual elements not well explained. We can't be expected to supply the underlying arguments and explanations. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This statement looks to me as a self-admission by Etienne Dolet that he follows edits by LouisAragon because of his allegedly anti-Armenian editing. But whatever. That does not really concern me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I see an editor make some problematic edits, I may go through their edits and look for other edits and fix them, or take action if needed. This isn't hounding.  Hounding is harassing someone when there is no mistake, or following them endlessly, or being contrarian and reverting them for the sake of reverting them.  For instance, if I revert 20 out of your last 25 edits for MOS mistakes, that isn't hounding.  If I take a few weeks and revert your edits, then add them back with my own words with dubious justification, that is hounding. Many people set the bar way too low for what they define as "hounding".  Me fixing a bunch of your edits that are problematic, isn't hounding. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what many people do. I know it. This is not wikihounding. That's why I checked what exactly ED was trying to fix. This. Following someone to "fix" this I think is indeed problematic. I can be wrong of course.My very best wishes (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what Drmies said is right as well, they have to present a decent case and do at least half the work. You can't just drop off a problem and force us to investigate, you have to give examples of a clear violation that affects AE, and they didn't.  They mainly posted things that weren't a problem or were borderline ANI problems at worst. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, this is your call. Thank you for response. My very best wishes (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Standard of review
Hi, do you think ArbCom has a different standard of review than AN has? Is this discussed anywhere?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Any chance that I can make a comment here or at AE about Ihardlythinkso? There's something I really really want to say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't about standard of review, it is about venue. Arbcom can overrule anything.  AN can't really overrule an AE ruling unless the admin did something wrong.  It can't overrule because it disagrees, or that would make AE useless.  AE isn't a community board, or admin board, it is directly an Arb board.  If you want to appeal something on the merits at an Arb board, you go to Arb.  WP:AN appeals have to be about the non-Arb portions, technical stuff.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish the rules would say that somewhere. Anyway, I don't care enough to pursue it.  Though I'm sure this topic-ban will be used next time someone wants me topic-banned or site-banned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, it seems crazy, and in both places, all I can do is speak up for what I understand is the consensus based (Policy) process. I still think you shouldn't have been tbanned, but I think the process was very fair.  I accept that sometimes, I am in the minority and have to just accept things I disagree with, while being honest and saying the process itself was fair.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See, my impression has always been that since a number of Arbcom cases and Arbitration Enforcement actions are about/against users who will try and exploit/wikilawyer every available process, policy and guideline - be it maliciously so or not - the whole system is set up to counteract this tendency by setting strict requirements for overturning a sanction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you're obviously not referring to me since I already said above that I'm not going to ArbCom about this. And since Dennis is the one who raised the issue at WP:AN about how editors there should evaluate an appeal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he isn't talking about you, but he is right. It is hard to overturn AE decisions on purpose.  The community is actually being very flexible with you Anything.  Any admin could have closed it, but I think they understand this is a volatile subject.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis, just a quick thank you for the wise words above about the process being fair (I'm talking about this generally, not this specific case). This might seem very obvious to you and others, but when an editor is in the middle of a lashing from other editors at e.g. AN/I or even at ARBCOM it often feels "unfair".  I'm wondering whether closing admins or especially non-admin closures should carry words to the effect that they have assessed the fairness of the process they are closing and found this to be satisfactory? DrChrissy (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is implied, otherwise they would just close against consensus. If I saw a dog pile of meatpuppets and the like and 4/5ths of them wanted to ban you (just an example), I would close as "no consensus, the entire process is unfair and tainted".  I've done it before and so have many admin. If I thought the AE was an unfair process, I could have easily closed it as "No action".  Admin can't revert AE closings, so it would likely be forced to Arb and be moot before it could be heard.  This is an extreme example, but holds true.  AE isn't a consensus board, that is the key to remember. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight - very helpful, DrChrissy (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling that I would be in the minority if I agreed, so I really can't agree to that without experiencing the wrath of my bretheren, and I'm not up for that. Honestly, I don't know that it would help that particular situation, and that is the first priority. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well how about if I email it to you, and you can let me know if it would help the situation or not, and surely if you think it would help the situation then you could post it instead of me posting it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as you understand my answer may be "I'm not sure, so doing nothing". I've got two hours of sleep in me and about to fade out for the evening, so I probably can't view it until tomorrow.  I suggest any more discussion be offwiki, as to make sure we comply with your current restrictions.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, emailing you within the hour.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Coconut foods
Hi D.B. – Per your enjoyment of non-stressful Wiki activity, feel free to help improve the new List of coconut dishes article. Anything missing there? North America1000 07:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Coconut ice is currently a redirect to an Indian drink, but is a standard home-made sweet (candy) in Britain - possibly has a different name in other countries? See a, few example ghits. Can't do it myself right now. Pam  D  08:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * pinging. Pam  D  08:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And it apparently gets a mention in the Harry Potter books, though the link I tried to add to show this was blocked as part of hubpages. Pam  D  08:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for the suggestion! New stub created at Coconut ice. North America1000 08:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is kind of like the neapolitan coconut candy here in the states, except ours adds strawberry and chocolate flavored sections. Brach's sells the medium sized cubes of them and others sell the bars, That might be worth a section as they appear to be a subset or Americanized version of coconut ice. Need to see what photos I can shake up.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That was easy, found one on commons and two on Flickr and uploaded them. The coconut ice image isn't the best, but it is sufficient to demonstrate the confection until a better one can be had.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for uploading the image. I didn't think about the Brach's candy, which are tasty. They're also a good item to include in emergency food kits, because they pack a lot of calories into a concise unit . North America1000 10:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.


 * Use   to invite others using this template.
 * Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

Any thoughts....
...about putting yourself up for ArbCom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've had at least a couple ask me privately starting about two months ago and I have given it more consideration than I ever have before, but waiting for the election. I would say to everyone who asked privately that I appreciate the faith they put in me, but right now is not the time. To make a long story short, many of the propositions that passed this election cycle open some opportunity for me, and I'm going to be very busy with my company, Solacure.  She turns 3 in the spring, although my research and development for her goes back over two decades.


 * At this stage in my life, with all the things that have happened to me over the last two years, I have to take advantage of the opportunity. I still expect to poke around editing and admin some, but if by chance I was elected, there is simply no way I could fulfil that role properly. I know others have been slack about the job in the past, but I'm not interested in just having the title.  That isn't the kind of person I am nor want to be.  Maybe someday when I can do it right and devote a couple hours every day.  Until then, I'm confident there are plenty of good people to fill those shoes.  This year has been a better year for Arb, hopefully it is part of a trend. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure looks like the cannabis market will be expanding, and with it the UV demand.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you gave it intelligent consideration, and wish you the best of luck with your company. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also wish you luck with your company, with the caveat that you may need it. Yes, many states have now legalized recreational use, and I think a majority allow medical use. But the new Attorney General-designate is a hardliner on the "war on drugs" and wants to wipe out the evil weed. You are not going to see the tolerant, respect-state-law attitude you saw during the Obama administration. It's going to be an interesting next few years. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we saw more legal dispensaries busted during Obama than under Bush. The mainstream press just didn't cover it very well.  The first two years in particular were brutal under Obama.  Got better towards the end. I just sell light bulbs. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hope all is well
Hello Dennis,

Hope all is well with you and your family. It feels good to be back to where I belong. I've had a great learning experience from you and several other people who I'm thankful for. I look forward to working with you again in the future. Best. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

TTAAC
Hello Dennis. FYI there's been another 1RR violation by this user shortly after you closed the AE thread with yet another "last warning" to that user:. SPECIFICO talk  02:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should some random former employee of the government's opinion be in a BLP? The rules shouldn't slip because Donald Trump is a Conservative.--v/r - TP 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * TP, this is not about content, it's about conduct and competence. It's about all the editors who don't even go to speak up at AE because disruptive editors such as TTAAC have driven them off of articles that Arbcom recognized need special protection. I don't understand why Admins are so reluctant to enforce Arbcom discretionary sanctions and then even when a formal case is filed they second-guess whether the sanctions are really necessary.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment was **definitely** about conduct. It's about editors using Wikipedia for political reasons and using AE to game it.  It's about editors, like me, who have been driven off articles because of the double standard applied to BLPs of conservatives.  I do not see a single "former [government] employee said..." on HRC's article.  Not a single one.  There are many former FBI investigators who have made comments and none of them are in her article.  If everyone was treating his BLP exactly like they'd treat hers, then there wouldn't be any conflict.--v/r - TP 02:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, TP, I don't think that the concern you've just expressed relates to the enforcement of sanctions wrt the amply documented and longstanding misconduct of the editor in question. At any rate, we shouldn't camp out on Dennis' talk page for a discussion of the general editing environment.  Feel free to visit me on my talk any time you are so inclined.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No violation. I removed the contentious text one time; the two diffs cited by SPECIFICO are unrelated. (I should also reiterate that the AE report did not allege I had violated 1RR—because I didn't—but rather the additional stipulation "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you don't know how reverts work... SPECIFICO  talk  03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An edit is not a revert; we are allowed to make more than one edit within a 24 hour period without being instantly reported to admins or drama boards. I doubt any neutral observer will agree with SPECIFICO's characterization of this edit—in which I trimmed and revised the text with no change to the meaning of the paragraphs, for example by replacing "Trump mocked the report as fabricated" with "Trump's transition team dismissed the allegations, remarking: 'These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction'," and added material on the FBI's dissent (which Volunteer Marek partially reverted)—as a "revert" of any kind. Nor is the first part of this edit—in which I move a sentence to a different part of the same section to improve readability—a "revert." Only my blanket removal of all text pertaining to retired CIA officer Glenn Carle constitutes a revert—and I only made it once. Obviously, Dennis Brown is more than competent to review the diffs to for himself see if SPECIFICO's representation of them is accurate; I would remind SPECIFICO, however, that she has been admonished in the past for her "misguided...at best" portrayal of my edits and edit summaries (and for requesting "retaliatory and unwarranted" sanctions against me), and should be careful not to get in the pattern of filing frivolous complaints against other users.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's two diffs, and two different texts, but it's also two different reverts, as TTAAC knows very well. And this edit is particularly problematic because, as has been pointed out, it misrepresents the source. The text inserted by TTAAC claims that " The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not support CIA's assessment". That is NOT what the source says. What the source actually says is "The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling". In other words, the source says that while both the FBI and CIA agree that Russia meddled with the election, the FBI is not convinced about what the goal of that meddling was. TTAAC's edit purposefully tries to make it seem like the FBI is disputing that Russia meddled with the election at all. If this hadn't been brought up, then maybe it could be attributed to just sloppy rendering of the source, but the edit was made after it had been brought to the talk page (also this comment by TTAAC on another user's talk page indicates that they were aware of the issue). They have also tried to skew it in this way in other articles. Combined with the evidence already presented at WP:AE this is a pretty clear indication that the purpose here is just plain ol' POV pushing (and I get really irked when this is done by misrepresenting sources since that's basically a form of lying and if this was a scholarly community it'd be cracked down on hard).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "The text inserted by TTAAC claims that 'The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not support CIA's assessment'." has me confused with another user. I did not add the text in question—as the very diff he cited shows, I simply moved it, which is not a "revert." If I had added that text after Volunteer Marek deleted my moderate, well-sourced, and neutral version ("an earlier October 31 The New York Times report on a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe into alleged ties between Trump and Russia ... [was] said to have determined 'even the hacking into Democratic emails ... was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump'.") by falsely claiming it was OR (check the source for yourself), then I would be at two reverts. To reiterate, however, the heavy-handed and inaccurate version was added by MyMoloboaccount—and as a consequence of Volunteer Marek deleting my version, which actually made very clear that the dispute was limited to Russia's motivation. (With this latest revert, we're now back to approximately the same thing I had in mind.) So, no, I won't be accepting responsibility for MyMoloboaccount's revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, you moved it, rather than inserted it (that was MMA). My apologies, I withdraw my comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, now that this is cleared up, can we PLEASE take this as a learning opportunity? This is evidence of the goggles that politics puts on us all.  Can we please remember that we're Wikipedians first?  Because I'm losing faith and I need this one guys (and gals).--v/r - TP 23:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello gentlemen. I see everything is squared away.  That is good.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not officially retired
To clear things up a bit, I'm not claiming to be retired, and I'm not promising to come back in any real capacity. Real life is fine. The admin bit was surrendered for safety's sake as I don't expect to log in regularly. Unlike a handful of old admin that make one edit a year to hold on to their "power", I'm pretty unimpressed by the admin bit, which is more burden than joy, to be frank. This is the third time I've surrendered it, each time when I knew I would be gone a long time, and it is done for safety.

What bugs me as an editor is not a single thing. I'm frustrated over Wikipedia and the direction I see it going. I do think we are more worried about political correctness and there is too much group think. On the whole, Wikipedia has collectively evolved to be obsessed with politics of every flavor and gender, to the point that it suppresses free expression. So people leave.

Creating an encyclopedia for the world is ugly work sometimes, but too many here are too concerned with gender politics and political causes. While I can agree with many or most of their points, Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to make them. We have scared off a lot of talent. I've been really good about simply avoiding ALL of these topics, even when others try dragging me in. We are more focused on turning Wikipedia into a second rate social network than we are in turning it into a first rate encyclopedia, all in the name of not hurting someone's feelings.

We don't need safe zones, we need to simply write articles and follow NPOV. People need to toughen up. I volunteered to be a sysop, not a school marm. I'm pretty capable when it comes to dealing with protracted behavioral disputes, but I'm not here to baby people who are here for the wrong reasons, and I'm not willing to fight battles over what should be obvious.

I've put in over 10 years, over 54k edits, started around 50 articles, have several DYKs, a pair of GAs that I'm proud of, an FA and TFA, plus four years doing admin work. I've been reasonably patient and most would agree I've tried to be fair. I made mistakes, and when pointed out, I admitted them in the same forum I made them, never hiding, making excuses or covering them up. In the larger scheme of things, my contributions were minor, a grain of sand on a vast beach, but they were mine and I feel no shame in any of my work. I do feel less pride being here than I used to. I'm not angry, just frustrated.

I appreciate the kind comments, but I really don't check often enough to have a conversation (nor an argument, so save it please). I've disabled email. I really have no idea what the future holds and I don't feel compelled to "decide" anything. Besides, real life is really busy, two full time jobs, one of them a new business I own. I still read Wikipedia, and will fix stuff as an IP, but that's it for now. I wish you all well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking in; it's good to hear from you. Hope your life is going well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Dennis, what you have described here is exactly why I stopped editing. I wish you well in all your endeavors.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Knowledge sometimes hurts feelings. I wish it were not so.  Cheers Dennis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis, there's probably a lot that I could say, but I will just make one point. Where you said that your contributions have been minor, I want to reply that you have quite a few times cheered me up when I needed it. That's not nothing, and it's the proper part of online social interactions. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I want you to know how very much your contributions to Wikipedia have been appreciated. Personally, I hope you will pop by from time to time. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Full agreement with both of the above on all points. Regarding Dennis's points above, about the politics here, I wish I could disagree with him, but I really can't. Ideally, I could, almost, see wikipedia maybe best functioning as an agglomeration of sorts of content similar to that of all the leading reference works of a broadly encyclopedic type out there, and, honestly, wish we had more effort spent in that sort of thing. But, at the same time, after 10 years, anyone would have more than enough cause to move on. I hope, maybe, in time, depending on how the word schedule develops, you might have a chance of returning. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Dennis, one thing you missed in your achievements - you've made some friends here too :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, Dennis. Boing! has a good point, too, so please keep in touch from time to time. Take care ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This place has jumped the shark. When an editor of this caliber leaves, things are pretty freakin' bad. What's worse? No one's really going to fix it. People do need to toughen up. But they won't. Political correctness is destroying free expression here. I'll never come back here under my old identity again (I'm neither a blocked nor a banned editor. Just a disgusted one.) . Thanks for being one of the best admins I've seen here, Dennis! Your level of patience and understanding is extremely uncommon in this crazy den of pigs. 24.38.225.159 (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per - and I'll probably copy and use Dennis' valedictory above when I retire - which might be sooner than some of the trolls realise. They'll all be able to dance over the grave of RfA and continue to make a mockery of NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Dennis, I'd like to echo the kind words others have said here, and thank you for the work you have done here, as well as our conversations. Disagreement with someone who makes you think can often be a much more rich experience than agreement. I hope all is well with you and yours. Do look me up if you're ever in Philadelphia. That '79 Puligny Montrachet will be past its prime one of these days! Joefromrandb (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

SCHOOLOUTCOMES
You provided no explanation at Articles for deletion/Gyeonggi Suwon International School when you closed it. Do you have a policy rationale? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RFCs withstanding, there is a long tradition of keeping articles on secondary schools which is supported by the community broadly. Thus those arguments were strong in my eyes.  The arguments to delete were not as strong.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gyeonggi Suwon International School
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gyeonggi Suwon International School. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Another issue
From your work on Pandeism you might be interested in goings on with "Panendeism" - see q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Panendeism and this Wiktionary user talk. A small number (mainly User:JohnSanford) seek to inject the term, starting with Deism (where it redirects), combining references to non-notable self-published websites and quoting a famous person who died long before the word was invented, who wasn't speaking of it. In the Wikiquote discussion, they basically admit they're promoting it because they're "simply passionate" about this word they've invented.

I can't find anything counting as a reliable source verifying claimed meanings (which seem suspiciously like Deism-plus-"whatever you want it to mean"). Only their Facebook group, self-published websites, and very fleeting mentions in non-expert books. Nonetheless, pops up in high profile articles here (God, Theism) and a handful of others - always with no source, or their own self-published source. Think it needs to be excised. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Kind of weird since pandeism is arguably more comparable to panenetheism than pantheism as it is. I've never heard of panendeism before.  Of course, we follow the sources, so if he is violating WP:synth with this, it needs to be reverted out.  On this, I can't really act as an admin, just as an editor since I've been involved with the parent article a good deal.  When I get time, I will poke my head in.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More concerned with the Panendeism section in Deism, where they reference their own self-published website. Nearly incomprehensible. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, they trashed that article. I don't have time now, but it needs some wholesale deleting.  Anything sourced with primary links should be deleted, particularly considering this is a philosophy based topic.  Too easy for personal opinions to trash WP:NPOV.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been bold, and removed the section. Dennis, it is wonderful to see you back!  I hope you got some good rest.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

? Indoor tanning
Noticed you removed some spam. Seems to be more of the same by that editor earlier in the day. Don't know if you looked at that, decided it was ok. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked a couple of their edits and saw they were already reverted, then I had to deal with an emergency here. If they are adding spam, revert.  I will look when I get the chance.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hope your emergency resolves well! Hyperbolick (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Disabled employee ran her car into a creek, had to go fish her out. She can't walk at all, uses a wheelchair.  Finding her was a problem, she drove a bit into the woods, couldn't see her from the road. Getting her uphill through all that water, brush, muck and poison ivy was an ordeal.  She is fine, her car is not.  So yes, it was an eventful afternoon.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OMGs, please give her my best. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thoughts and prayers with her. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * She's doing okay now, I hope. Kurtis (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Friedreich's ataxia is a cruel disorder. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting her uphill through all that water, brush, muck and poison ivy was an ordeal. And that's the kind of thing we love you for, Dennis. You are the best! --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An apropos metaphor for the ordeal that contributing to this once-great-but-still-worthy project has become. It's not at all surprising that you're the same kind of hero in a real-life situation. Quite good to have you back, Dennis! Joefromrandb (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You give me way too much credit here. Just doing what anyone else would have done, even for a stranger.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

UV (tanning) in euphoria
Hello Dennis, I appreciate your interest in the euphoria article. Regarding your recent edit, I'm not sure that Levins (1983) conclusively disproved UVR and β-endorphin, as contrary evidence was published in 2015 "Skin β-endorphin mediates addiction to ultraviolet light", and this, with other supporting evidence, was cited in one or more reviews.

Can you provide sufficient MEDRS to support the removal? — βox73 (৳alk) 04:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC) typo — 04:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC) The way I see it, reasonable controversies are not ours to decide, but rather to discuss in the article, given due weight. I see no evidence that contradictory claims are impacting recent (5-year or less) secondary sources, and, though I am providing additional MEDRS, respectfully, I don't see a special need to overcome your assertion. Exercising your prerogative, I'm not even sure what the disproof is. I am currently reviewing MEDRS about ecstatic seizures (and ictal related euphoria), and functions of the anterior insular cortex. I am asking one of the authors of cited MEDRS to comment on that current Wikipedia material, much like you have here. I would welcome your comments too. Thanks again! — βox73 (৳alk) 07:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC) add local reflist — 07:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it works the other way. You need to provide better and more sourcing to add the material since it is questionable.  A single source would be insufficient to source this considering the contradictory claims.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Here it comes.

--
 * I believe the studies you allude to are: 2002 "Plasma levels of opioid peptides after sunbed exposures" and 2001 "Total body exposure to ultraviolet radiation does not influence plasma levels of immunoreactive beta-endorphin in man". These are primary sources which, "should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources.... Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." This certainly applies to bold editing too. Given WP:MEDPRI—and my 5 additional MEDRS refs—do you have sufficient MEDRS to support the removal? — βox73 (৳alk) 10:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't see #1, #2 looks clean, #3 doesn't support the claim, at least in the pages I could see, #4's abstract doesn't mention it and is a primary source, I don't have access to #5 and it is primary but I can see where that is likely to have the information and may be useful. I'm not a doctor, I've just been in the industry for more than a couple of decades and know this has been a point of contention. Without regard to WP:WEIGHT, I would say the recent studies, as supported by at least two secondary sources, would support your claim. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree there are issues: Is UVR on shaved but normally fur-covered rodent skin a fair model for normally bare human skin? Another is, assuming systemic release, circulating beta-endorphin does not pass the BBB. But as you know, melanoma risk is causing a stir among dermatologists. Tanning is popular and even melanoma patients persist, consistent with a behavioral addiction. Tanning produces an affect compared to runners' high and withdrawal is seen with naloxone given compulsive tanners. In the end I suspect other mechanisms are responsible, including some psychological, eventually impacting central opioids. For now the behavioral addiction (and naloxone studies) rationalizes the beta-endorphin hypothesis. If returned, I'll try to better word this. Thanks pal. — βox73 (৳alk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't sure if production or systemic release of beta-endorphin was the issue when I collected the refs. PubMed does list #4 and #5 as reviews, and provides full text which include the cited quotes. They also share the same lead authors.
 * Again, I've been in the industry for over 2 decades, but admit my COI, but I'm not blind to the truth. I've seen the "facts" shift from pro, to con, to maybe pro again.  We just have to be really careful here not to inject original research.  ie: you talk about melanoma, but there is growing evidence that sunscreen actually increases the chances of melanoma, which is much harder to treat than carcinoma.  Australia has done some interesting studies on this, how after their "Slip, Slop, Slap" campaign, carcinomas declined by melanomas actually increased.  Then there is the fact that skin cancer is higher in places with almost no sunshine.  It isn't a simple "sunshine = cancer" argument like some of the lesser sources claim.  This is why we want high quality sources that pass WP:MEDRS. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back
...once again. I hope that your time away was refreshing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hooray, Dennis is back! Great to see you, my friend! --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Giddy-up!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Good news! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What they said. It's good to get away from this place for a while, but it's great to see you back. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

😀 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice one: Dennis! 🎉🏁 🍔 🍻 &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, glad to see you poking about again Dennis. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, Really good to see you back. Do take care, regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Bugger off! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you back again. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No promises. I'm still more than a little non-plussed by the direction I see Wikipedia going, to be frank, enough that I may contribute to articles but don't expect to get into a lot of meta areas.  The PC police and people who just want to create more rules, they make the place uninviting for newcomers and old timers equally.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So much for that idea. Welcome back Dennis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome back.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It's good to see you back again. Pam D  21:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You came back? Hooray!!! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

YAY! YOU'RE BACK! :D -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Really glad to see you back. You've been missed. :-) Katietalk 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

+1, etc. BencherliteTalk 18:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

&#8727;arrives late at party, heads straight to bar, grabs beer&#8727; Oh, hey Dennis, you're back! Good to see you! Is there any cake left? Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You are the best of the best. Hope all is going well for you! Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, Dennis.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Dennis.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 22:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back me ol' mucker, Hope all is well. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Late to the wonderful event (per usual) but I'm glad to add my voice to the chorus. A most welcome return. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
I am so happy that I don't have to put that on an empty page, that Farmer Brown is back! (We talked about the piece - about the clever farmer - a while ago.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

question regarding politics
Hi (and welcome back again). Do you know any editors who are involved in election type articles? I declined an article at AfC, Draft:Newton mayoral election, 2017, because it seems to be an uneventful local election. There are no specific guidelines for elections, but all the coverage is local, routine type stuff. Any suggestions?  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there is no guideline that explicitly addresses elections and OUTCOMES doesn't either. (I may remedy that at some point.) However, in my experience the community generally does not accept elections below the state or provincial level as notable unless there is something beyond the routine going on and they receive more than passing coverage from non-local/regional reliable sources. There will be common sense exception for your really large metropolitan areas New York City, London, Los Angeles, etc. But no, municipal and county elections are not usually accepted as notable and are rarely kept at AfD. I think your decline of the draft was a good call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Side note... allow me to add my welcome back to Dennis. You were missed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I avoid politics when possible, so no I don't. Ad Orientem does sum up my feelings to the letter, however.  Unless a local election is really unusual, it would not pass muster.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In New Zealand mayoral elections are generally kept.  J 947 (c)  19:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Gregory Creswell
Just prior to your closing of the AfD for Gregory Creswell Myself (The creator of the article) and and two people favoring deletion (including Mackensen who originally nominated the article for deletion) were reaching a consensus to redirect the article to Libertarian_Party_of_Michigan. Since the article was not an orphan, this would give a meaningful destination to some information about the subject, and preserve the extensive edit history. This would also be appropriate since two stubs about candidates from the Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2006 with less coverage were treated in a similar manner: Bhagwan Dashairya and Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician). So please consider undeleting the article purely to make it a redirect page, with an edit history. --Libertyguy (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please also consider restoring Greg Creswell which was a redirect page that was not part of the AfD.--Libertyguy (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem if the redirects are created, a couple of people spoke of them in the discussion but not enough to close that way. Still, as long as they stayed redirects and didn't blossom into the same article, I don't think the community would take issue.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How can we make it so?--Libertyguy (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You just create the redirect yourself. ie: recreate the article with the following text, changing to appropriate values. You can skip the section part if you want.


 * 1) REDIRECT ARTICLE NAME

Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I created the redirect, but there is no edit history. For comparison, Bhagwan Dashairya and Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician) had edit histories. I don't think this is something I can do on my own.  I respect the process and fully understand that this must not be used as way to go against the spirit of the AfD.  If I see any editor attempt to change the redirect into an article, I will revert the edit immediately and alert the editor that doing so is disruptive and direct them to the AfD as to why it was disruptive.--Libertyguy (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is normal to have no history. The people at the AFD voted to delete.  This means delete the history.  The redirect is just a tool to help readers if they search for that term. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There was discussion of a merge just prior to closing as mentioned above. Is there a process by which to do this (as was done with the less notable examples I mentioned)? I assume this would involve a discussion with other editors.--Libertyguy (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it was closed as delete. There wasn't enough reliable sources to really merge anything.  If you want to add something in the article, that is between you and the editors of that article.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)