User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0

Method statement
This is my idea, based on a combination of what Boing is doing for me, and how the military trains people. Seriously. To train in the military, you break them down, you build them up. Trust me, I was there. I know you are feeling a bit broke down. This is actually helpful. Now we build you up with new techniques. We empower you by helping you develop new tools that will make you a better editor. Don't take offense at the obvious nature of some of the thoughts and ideas, or the intentional redundancy. I don't think you are dumb, and that is not why it is there. They are there to remind you of what you already know, and how it applies to new communication methods. Repetition leads to habits. The key is to create your own guideline that you agree to, you edit and add to, and you live by. By you participating in this way, it will reinforce the ideas. Basically, you and I are building an interaction guide, one that could be used for any other editor. There are already lots of holes in this guide, and you need to help me fill them. This is self paced, but does require that you follow your own instructions in every interaction you have here. You are the boss, and you have to be a little tough on yourself. The ideas you build here will become habit because you practice them every day and you are the one who is determining what the "rules" are. I have only provided you a starting point. Nothing here is chiseled in stone, feel free to delete or modify anything.

Don't be overwhelmed by all this. It is a bit rough as it is the first time I've done this, but we are starting from the ground up and you can use as much or as little as is needed. Just remember that YOU are in control here. Change comes from within, not the outside, and I'm only here as a guide. Think of me as training wheels that you will soon enough cast off. The conversations here should be relaxed, not formal. The stronger you embrace it, the quicker the new techniques become good habits, the more natural the changes will feel. There is no particular timeline. In order for you to experience the type of change you are looking for, you need to start from the bottom up and cover things you already know. This isn't about educating you on the minor points (you already know most of this), it is about reinforcing the ideas in your mind so they become practical, instead of theoretical. You say the ideas, you read them, you type them, you become them. You invite other editors that you trust to participate. You delete or revert as you please. We aren't going to try to change you, we are going to help you reduce your actual and apparent frustration level by increasing your confidence in your actions and show you some methods to reduce stress. You can't just "be polite", you have to learn methods to become less defensive on the inside, so the "polite" is a natural extension of yourself. All personal changes will be of your own making.

You will be forced to slow down your pace at BLPN, as well as each interaction during this process, accept this and don't burn yourself out trying to do too much, as that isn't helpful. Likely, you will work slower at the end of it as well yet get more work done, since haste is one problem that leads to more problems. You still need to work on articles for this to work, just avoid the heavy lifting for a while. Allowing others to carry the load for a while is one of the important lessons here, interdependence. Again, much of what is here is redundant, other things are elementary. This is intentional for reinforcing, not a statement on your intelligence.

You are not obligated to do this, and the styles and methods here will likely change. This is just the start, I have no idea what it will look like in a week. By deleting or collapsing/renaming this top section, I will assume you are ready to start by spending a day reading, mulling it over, and asking a question or two in the sections below. Feel free to delete any content, rearrange, or otherwise format it in a way that is natural for you. I will adjust. If you decide you do not want to participate at all, you may simply delete this whole page, but that may make it difficult to help you further. The next move is yours.

Goal
Overview - To create and develop new habits that will improve communications and reduce disruptive behavior in every day dealings at Wikipedia.

To accomplish this, we need to do a few things.
 * 1. Become more proactive by leaving better summaries and talk page notes when making any potentially contentious revert or edit.
 * 2. Develop a more polite and neutral communication style, which invites others to engage rather than attack.
 * 3. Create consistency in summaries, messages and communications so your intent is more clear.
 * 4. Reduce the temptation to act hastily. This will let you get more done, since you spend less time explaining or defending yourself.
 * 5. Establish thresholds, so you know when to walk away and let someone else finish the job, preventing you from acting in a reactionary way.
 * 6. Establish methods, so each time you revert or take action, you so in a consistent way with surety and in compliance with expectations.
 * 7. Document this so you have a guide to help you along the way, and perhaps someone else down the road.

Guidelines for all participants
This page may be modified by YRC in any way he sees fit, including stripping content, rearranging or otherwise formatting to be more useful. Other editors are welcomed to participate, but should respect the overall structure and respond in the proper sections. We aren't here to pat anyone on the back, we are here to build. All criticisms, praises and observations are welcome, but a high level of civility is expected here. YRC and Dennis Brown reserve the right to delete or revert any comment of any editor without explanation.

Methods
To be edited by YRC and to serve as a "how to guide", with the goal of developing new habits, reinforced by the act of writing them down. These will change as restrictions are lifted or as YRC determines to be within the spirit of change. It might seem odd, but it works if you let it. In order to develop new habits, you must commit yourself to following what ever is on this list at the time you act. That is what makes it a habit in time. Review this list each time before reverting.


 * 0. Be extraordinarily polite. You will be amazed at how effective this is.  It becomes a habit in time.


 * 1. 1st revert = Leave short note on article talk page briefly explaining why you are reverting.


 * 2. If someone reverts you without talk:
 * a. Politely ask why on article talk page
 * b. Leave short neutral note on their talk page, pointing to article talk page.


 * 3. Wait 24 hours.


 * 4. Revert back if no one has discussed, leave new note on article talk page.


 * 5. If they or someone else reverts again, seek outsider for opinion.

Exceptions after 1RR:
Again, will be modified as self imposed restrictions are lifted, or along the way as appropriate.
 * If you have to revert twice because it is obvious vandalism, immediately tell one of your contacts below. Don't revert again, use WP:AIV if needed.
 * If you think it is not vandalism but is a serious BLP issue, tell a contact below and let them act.
 * If it is clearly outing, treat similar as vandalism, revert then tell an admin or go to ANI.
 * If you aren't sure or your blood pressure is above normal, ask first. Go have a cup of tea, do something else for 30 minutes.
 * Never, ever edit when you are angry. If all else fails, dump the problem on all of us at ANI and just walk away for an hour.  Don't let yourself be tempted.  Nothing is so important that it can't be handled by someone else for an hour.

Developing a new perspective
These are long, general suggestions that apply to all interactions. Even as you read them all, spend time to memorize the spirit of each one individually. Apply it to your daily activity. Repetition is the foundation to new habits. Add to them as if you were trying to help someone else. Reword or delete others. It will serve as a reminder to yourself, a reaffirmation of what you already know. It is important that you do this.


 * How calm and collected you appear in your comments and summaries has a direct influence on how others will treat you. Go overboard with the neutrality.  Think calm, slow down, have confidence in what you say.  If you aren't confident, don't say it and go get more info.  Working here isn't a sprint, it is a marathon.  Pace yourself.  You will end up getting more done this way.


 * One of the most effective techniques for persuading someone is to start your comment with something you agree with, then work in your differences. "We both agree his is an important director, and there is a lot of material we can work into the article, but I've been told that we shouldn't add this kind of material without a proper source" or "I agree that it is interesting, but we need to be careful that we aren't turning the section into a trivia list, which can get the whole section deleted." If you can convince the person that you are both on the same side, but there is a logical reason (external to you) that you have to remove or revert, then you aren't the bad guy. Note the use of "we", and less use of "I" or "you".  You both are trying to improve the article, after all.


 * Feeling stressed over someone's revert or addition to an article that has become contentious? Dump it on ANI like this:  $x is happening at article and rather than get into a revert war, I need an admin to jump in and deal with it.  I'm going off wiki for a few hours.  Then go read a book or play a video game to blow some stress.  You don't need to be snippy or biased, just keep it simple and trust that others are smart enough to figure it out.  Have enough faith in your own conclusions that you allow others to come to the same conclusion without prodding.


 * Give others the opportunity to appreciate your good judgement. It isn't a defeat.  When I'm mad, I always go to another admin or ANI and let someone else handle it, so I don't risk getting in trouble because I'm human enough to lose my objectivity sometimes. (check Drmies talk page if you think I'm kidding you here.)  We all get mad from time to time, mainly because we care.  The key is in how we deal with it.  You will never be able to avoid getting mad.  You can only avoid overreacting to it by letting others step in and help you.  Others who are not emotionally invested and haven't lost their objectivity.  Know when to let someone else go to bat for you.  If your blood pressure is elevated, or your can hear your heartbeat through the throbbing veins in your forehead, odds are good that you need someone else to step in.  Let them.


 * You aren't a cowboy, you are an important but equal part of a team. Machines need every cog in order to function, allow the other cogs to do their jobs.  Let me leave a strongly worded message on a users talk page for incivility against you, don't do it yourself.  By the same token, I hope I can ask the same from you.  We help each other to do two things: 1. Keep us from overreacting.  2.  Demonstrate to an editor that an action is inappropriate to more than one person.  Of course, if I ask you to look at a situation and you think I am the one who is wrong, I expect you to be 100% honest with me and say so, don't just do my bidding.  I will always do the same for you.  This is how we both learn, and we all stay out of trouble.


 * If a user makes a personal attack or bad faith claim against you, try to simply ignore it the first time and focus on the issue as if they didn't say it. If they repeat, do not reply, ask someone else to. You are human, you need objective eyes to determine the severity of the comment.  We each are not good at determining this when we are the victim of the attack. Sometimes a person will lash out, then your calm and collected reasoning wins the day.  Retaliating never, ever "wins", it just insures conflict.  Remember, the goal isn't to "win", it is to get the desired result, be it an inclusion or deletion.  If you get the desired result, and they think they "won", all the better as you likely won't have to revisit it.


 * Stay on topic. The easiest way to turn a discussion into a debate is if you drift into tangents.  If you think a conversation has the chance to become contentious, be pithy, be direct, be polite, keep it short.  Don't give others ammunition, just stay on topic.


 * Always assume good faith. I don't mean like we define it here, I'm talking about even when you are sure that someone is not acting in good faith but it isn't vandalism.  Always, always give others plenty of opportunity to walk away and save face.  Allow a bad faith editor every chance to either give up or give in "with honor" by never questioning their faith.  This makes them less defensive.  Questioning their faith is seldom productive anyway.  Remember, we are after the results, not the "win".  Any time you can walk away from an article with your preferred version, and the other editor isn't going to labor it and he isn't mad, well, that IS a win.  Focus on doing whatever is the easiest to achieve the desired result and don't worry what the other editor thinks about you personally.  It is of no consequence either here or in the real world.


 * Try to use templates less, and personal notes more. Polite notes are exceedingly effective, if for no other reason than they are seldom used here.  From my experience, most users have no desire to strike out after I've left a strong but polite note, even if they disagree with my observations.  Several times I have had editors say "Thank you, I've never had an admin explain that to me before" and I end up making a friend.  It really happens more than you think.  I have examples if you want to see them.  See templates below for examples of more personal and effective notes you can cut and paste.


 * Sometimes you lose. This is a fact of life.  Sometimes you are on the other side of consensus.  I tend to think outside of the box, so it happens to me a lot.  I accept that others disagree, even while retaining my own views.  I consider their opinions, sometimes allowing them to work their way into my perspectives, and sometimes not.  But you move on and don't labor the issue.  If you are the losing side of a battle, and the forehead veins are again bulging, just walk away and live to fight another day.  Maybe next week or next month, they will finally come around to your way of thinking, but laboring the issue pushes them away to the point that they will oppose you, even if they start to think you are correct, out of spite.


 * Watch DGG's talk page. Even when I disagree with him I always walk away learning something new.  He is very non-confrontational and quite persuasive, even while refusing to comment more than once in most discussions.  He is direct, uncompromising but always the at the peak of civility.  There is good reason why he is highly respected, even by those who disagree with him.  I owe much of my ability to remain calm during duress to observing his methods.


 * Learn Interdependence. Make it a part of your every day thinking.  Memorize it, understand it, maybe even improve the article to reinforce the ideas in your own mind.  You and I are interdependent.  Allow yourself to become interdependent on the admins and editors here.  None of us can do it alone.  I can not stress how important this one lesson is.  If you did nothing else but incorporate this into your every day thinking, it would reduce your stress level and help you become a better editor.


 * If I have a preferred version of the article and someone wants to revert me and add BLP or NPOV content, the goal is to get my version. If at the end of the discussion, they think I'm a fool or an idiot, it doesn't matter, as long as the preferred version is maintained.  I won't spend any time trying to convince them otherwise because it serves no purpose and will instead make them combative.  If you get your way, let them think whatever they want.  It doesn't change anything.  Always focus on the end goal, always communicate in a way that is most likely to get them to agree with you.


 * Apologies are a wonderful thing, and they are dirt cheap. Starting a conversation with an apology breaks down barriers, even when you aren't exactly wrong.  "I'm sorry you felt that way, I wasn't trying to made you mad, I was just concerned because I've been told a dozen times you can't add facts like this without citation.  If you like, we can ask an outside opinion."  Yes, you shift the blame, you offer to invite an outside party, and this makes it difficult for any otherwise good faith editor to get bent out of shape.


 * In a heated dispute, be generous with the rope. Always choose your words so carefully that when an admin walks into the conversation, the incivility is so obviously one sided that he is compelled to take action.  If you are snippy, you remove the ability of others to jump to your defense.  Often, being calm is contagious and you can work them down to a simmer anyway.  Set the example in every communication you make.


 * Treat every discussion as if you were running for RfA next week. "May my words be tender and sweet, for tomorrow I may have to eat them".  Slow down and parse your words carefully.  Take the time to read twice, type in Notepad, then transfer over if it is a more complicated reply.


 * Sometimes you can be more effective if you choose a tone that is more akin to a fellow editor, and less akin to "an authority" on a subject. Asking questions you already know the answer to can be effective in helping them understand your reasoning.


 * Ask sincere questions. "Just curious, why do you think that section is important?"  Don't qualify it, just ask them simply and politely.  Then you might find their true motivations and a way to help them achieve their goals without violating the guidelines.  Keep the tone low key, don't ramp up the drama.


 * Most importantly, remember this: You are not alone. You don't need to act alone. Even when admins disagree with you, we are all on the same side.  When you find yourself in the minority, always consider the possibility that you are wrong, or just viewing the point too strictly.  If I disagree with you, it isn't a statement on your character, it is because I have a different perspective.  Maybe I disagree with you, yet I'm wrong.  Allow for differences of opinion with those who you look to for help.  Sometimes, you are just not going to agree with them.  Simply move on.  You can't win them all, and it isn't worth getting in trouble to get POINTy about it.

Assistance
List of people that are willing to be contacted directly when there is a concern. Ask others to be put on this list so you can always find someone who is active. Listed with contribs so you can see if they are likely online.

Templates
Examples of text you can copy and paste that are like templates, but more natural speech. These can be added/deleted/edited to suit your natural language. They make your conversations more consistent, yet personal and are as quick to use as the less personal templates. Add more to them. Notice how you are removing yourself from the negative action in many of these. You are not threatening action, you are concerned that others will take action. This helps make you out to be less of the "bad guy", yet still short of being passive aggressive. You also go the extra mile when you say "I assume you didn't do it on purpose" even when you think they might have do it on purpose, which is important for your first interaction. The reasoning is simple: you give them an easy out, a face saving way to simply comply with the desired result. The goal isn't to be "right", it is to get "the right result" using the shortest, fastest and easiest method. You learn non-confrontational resolution by practicing it, and seeing how effective it can be in many circumstances. You can always be somewhat more direct on a second post if it is required. This doesn't apply to clear and obvious vandalism. Please, add and edit your own quazi-templates here, fine tune them, and use them. Except in extreme circumstances, avoid absolutes like "you will be blocked", "this is a violation" , and of course "you are wrong".

editor talk page
I noticed you reverted me on article, and I wasn't sure why based on your edit summary. Please drop by the talk page of the article and leave a note under mine, so I can better understand why. Thanks! ~ You have already reverted 3 times recently at article and are in danger of violating WP:3RR. I don't want to see you get blocked, I just want to get the discussion moving on the talk page. You really need to go there and offer some rationale for your actions, else others will only be able to conclude that you are editing warring. Likely, any admin passing by will simply block you on your next revert, so it is important that you go to the talk page now to remove any doubt that you are acting in good faith. Thanks. ~

article talk page
I reverted the article because of it may be violating the BLP policy. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it is still something we have to be careful with. If you disagree, do me the favor of discussing it here before reverting back so there isn't a misunderstanding. If I made a mistake, I will be happy to revert it myself. Thanks in advance. ~ I've been told we can't add material like this without a citation due to the BLP policy. If someone was wanting to add it back, you would need to provide a reference or we can find an uninvolved admin to take a look at it if you think I'm mistaken. Thanks. ~

edit summaries
Even if you don't cut and paste these, put the summaries you expect to use here for review. Note the use of the word "please", which tends to make people feel less defensive and more likely to engage or move on after assuming you are correct. Also note the implied agreement with their edits, which makes it clear your reversion isn't confrontational, but procedural. Keep in mind, they just met you, and you had the gall to revert them. A polite summary defuses problems before they start. Remember the best summary is one that people will read and think "Hmm, smart guy, nice enough, he is probably right" or will at least get them to the talk page. By personalizing it, you have made the average user consider your opinions "I'm worried about a policy issue" is better than "You violated WP:BLP and I'm reverting". Granted, some editors are not civil enough to care, but you do it anyway, as many are, and those issues are instantly averted allowing you to move on to other issues with a single edit. Most people are not willing to be the first one to be rude. You take the extra steps because once they feel you have been rude, they think it is a free license to be rude back. Best to never give them the chance. When done properly, this will reduce revert backs and time.


 * Reverted due to BLP concerns. Please reply to me on talk page before reverting back.
 * Deleted material due to BLP concerns. Please see talk page for full rationale.
 * Please do not add back without checking the talk page, I'm worried about a serious policy issue here.
 * You might be right, but they won't allow that without sourcing, via BLP concerns. See talk page.
 * I tend to believe you, but it has to be removed it until I can find sources. See the talk page for more info.

Words to avoid and replacements
The key is to tone it down, particular for first encounters, and the words you use can influence how "calm" you appear to be. Sometimes, these ARE the right words, but usually they are not.
 * lie, falsehood
 * You are mistaken. You've been misled.  That isn't how I interpret it.  That seems misleading.  That isn't how I remember it.


 * block (sometimes it has to be used, other times it doesn't.)
 * You risk sanctions. You risk the admin taking action.


 * vandalism (when it doesn't strictly apply)
 * Disruptive edits. Unhelpful edits.  Contentious edits.  Unsupported facts.  Inappropriate edit.


 * warring (sometimes it is needed, other times not)
 * Disruption. Ongoing reverts.  Fighting.


 * stupid, idiotic
 * Misinformed. Mistaken.  Inappropriate.  Unsupported.


 * side, faction, fanboy (as in "two sides of an issue", which is divisive. Focus on unity.)
 * Different perspective. We have the same goal, just some different ideas.  We likely agree on most things, but need to build consensus.


 * You need to...
 * Please consider... Perhaps you can...  It would be helpful if...  I'm hoping you will...  You might try...


 * You are wrong
 * I'm sorry but I disagree. I just have a different perspective.  I'm not convinced that is correct.  I've always been told...

(add your own words that are too strong and that you feel you need to start substituting. It is more powerful when you add them, even if others add the substitutions.)

Questions by YRC
Here you list situations that you have not taken action on, for advice before you take action. You can also ask for review of your actions if you have already done so. Brief with diffs where appropriate, or just theoretical situations, this is free form. This is the most important section, as it is the self-guided part of learning and allows feedback on the issues that YOU feel you need work on, or answers to. You must be proactive here and ask questions regularly here.


 * I was looking for the 1RR template to add to my userpage to let other users know that I am working to that edit standard, but couldn't find it , is there one? - You  really  can  04:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of user boxes available: and User:Lear's Fool/Userboxes/1RR. Or you could make something yourself using the  template if a banner-size notice is what you are looking for. Cheers, -- Dianna (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dianna - done - You  really  can  05:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

feedback on ...

 * - User_talk:Jimbo_Wales - a discussion I started -  You  really  can  07:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * DC seems to have addressed it properly. I tend to think staying away from potentially contentious or political discussions would be good in the short term and focus on content.  We both know Jimmy isn't going to chime in and say "Yes, this is exactly what I envisioned", after all ;)   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will say that I have no problem with any of your later conversations during the process. You were direct, pithy, stayed focused on the issues. and didn't respond too frequently.  It would have been easy to get more blunt toward Fae, but you didn't and as you see, Jimmy handled it perfectly.  Your one comment to her was very strong, but it was measured and not over the line. (It reminded me of something  Malleus Fatuorum would say.)  Overall, I am pretty damn impressed.  Your first comment wasn't defective, but being too informal upfront can give others the wrong impression, or allows others who haven't seen you before take you less seriously than they should, but that is a minor point.   It is obvious you have the verbal skills, it is just a matter of adding the discipline to slow down and use them like you did later in all your dealings. The first comment had me a little concerned, the later comments erased that concern. More importantly, they were very persuasive.  The more persuasive you are, the shorter the conversation.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments of observers
Here is a place for anyone to make observations about any of YRC's actions that he has not brought up himself. Civility will be strictly enforced.


 * YRC - In addition to civility and assuming good faith, there is the fine art of stick dropping. Sometimes I drop the stick even when I'm right, if it serves the larger goals of Wikipedia. Sometimes the act of dropping will move people in your direction in a more general way.  Sometimes it requires humility, which is not an easy but does lead to respect, which incidentally, is a cornerstone of persuasion.  Of course, only you can decide when it is appropriate, others can't do this for you.  Just a thought for this day.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dennis - got some business to do for a few hours but tonight/tomorrow I will I will read/absorb/focus on this page. Stick dropping ... I see your point, and its a good one, and will look at it. I have many historic conflicts here, I have multiple wikipedia enemies - Users that oppose me at every available opportunity -   You  really  can  12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand, the key is to try to not make enemies moving forward. You see me talk about persuasion a lot. Not manipulation, but real persuasion. This is because, for me, focusing on this makes it easier to stay civil. One of the most powerful statements I have ever read, that made me change my tone on Wikipedia, is posted on DGG's page:


 * "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience. "

This is at the core of my participation in discussions. You can NOT sway those that oppose you, trying to is wasting time and annoys the hell out of everyone. Apply Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement by staying in the top three levels and DGG's method of speaking to the general public and not the individual, so that anyone ELSE looking will say "Oh yeah, I see YRC's points" and support your cause. It is easy to support the rational one in the conversation. In a conversation where one person is neutral and the other is not, it is human nature for neutral and persuasive people to jump to the defense of the neutral person, whom it looks like is being attacked. It is in our DNA. Patiently wait, others will come to your side, making your arguments 100x stronger than anything you can say alone. Interdependence. It works much more often than it doesn't.

This isn't about "fixing your rudeness", this is about showing you ways that are so much more effective at "winning" discussions, that rudeness is no longer a viable option. These methods aren't an alternative, they are clearly superior in achieving your goals. They are difficult and require time and discipline, however, but the rewards are worth it. You give a little along the way, but get more in the long haul. I am no smarter than you are, and in some areas your abilities clearly outclass mine, but I've learned how to get the average editor to strongly consider my opinions because I stay neutral and appear above the fray. This is a powerful thing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Distraction
In this comment the sentence "I would prefer him to be honest and connect himself to the Helatrobus account" was in bad form. It undermines your argument, for starters, and it is unnecessarily confrontational. Without any comment as to the accuracy or appropriateness of the claim, instead saying  "I still believe that he is connected to the Helatrobus account, something he has never admitted, and I think this should disqualify him from having the ban lifted" would have been more civil and neutral. And persuasive, for that matter. Because this is a very strong claim, you should have supplied diffs to substantiate the claim. It takes more time, but it would have demonstrated that you were "rising above the fray". I'm hoping you two can just agree to disagree. I have no opinion in the matter, my comment here is solely on style, not substance. What is hurting you is often your very first comment in a discussion, like the examples above. You have to slow down, don't be so quick to jump in, think it out, find diffs to support your view, then decide if participating is the best option. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  15:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have all the diffs that connect ChrisO to the Helatropus account - I will post them here if you want to investigate - those diffs have already been presented to an Arbcom member - IMO and others that have investigated there is no possibility that it is not the user- talking around that seems silly to me.- You  really  can  20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One of things I want to be careful to NOT do here, is tell you what to think or do. My comment was only referring to the harshness in how you expressed your concern.  In order for this to work, I have to not get involved in the content of disputes and focus only on tone.  That I don't comment shouldn't be seen as agreeing or disagreeing.   This is why I only commented on the wording, not the merits.  This is why I talk about how learning to express yourself more clearly and in a neutral tone will make you more persuasive, regardless of what side of an issue you are on.  When you are able to be more persuasive, you will find yourself much less likely to lash out.  That is my only concern and it is the only way to maintain our trust relationship during mentoring.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  20:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Dennis - you are right, I know that - "in how you expressed your concern" is an important problem that I need to address - You  really  can  21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me also stress this, I can already see a dramatic move in the right direction YRC, and it is obvious you are taking all the advice to heart. I DO notice all the "right ways" you are now doing things, even if I don't point them out here.  I know this it is hard, and takes a change of philosophy, but I'm quite happy with your efforts.  My criticism here should never be taken as disappointment in your progress, because I'm actually quite impressed with your efforts.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Closing the ANI
You probably disagree with me, and that's ok. That is just one of the differences between us that we can just accept without judging each other, as likely we both see the other's perspective, even if we don't agree with other. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No I agree with your closure and accept it - you have a degree of authority from your admin status that makes your comment and your close much more acceptable in respect to my objections to imo the premature/forced /previous unreasonable closures -  You  really  can  21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was quite pleased with my position - I made one revert of the close and then moved to discussion - from my discussion the previous closer self reverted - The whole issue was silly and perhaps I should have just ignored it - an option for the future - You  really  can  21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see Ent's reasons for the close. (just went and looked) I wouldn't have closed it simply because SW said to, but I would have taken their request under consideration.  But that is Ent's right to close, as it was yours to revert.  At ANI, you get to decide when it starts but not when it ends, that's the breaks.  SW and Malleus are both  known to push the limits of civility, just in different ways.  SW's rudeness is from a lack of control, Malleus' is from wanting to have the last word.  Neither care much for me for my ways ( Ent doesn't seem to care much for me either, although I have no idea why ), so my closing seems pretty neutral.  Again, if someone wants to override it, I won't wheel-war over it.     Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your closure was fine - I need to look at - do I need to discus thus - hm - You  really  can  21:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be in and out this evening. I need to spend some quality time with the Mrs. and my two dogs.  I've been putting in a lot of time, trying to just mainly tie up loose ends, I have a lot going on here.  But I always have or will make time to address a question or concern, and put that first.  Well, second, behind the Mrs. and the dogs anyway ;)   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While starting the conversation more neutrally would have been better, this was the next best thing and proper.  Ent is a good guy, even if you disagree with some things he does, he is one of the good ones.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * adding I noticed that your continuing tone was excellent, and now you find out that you and he agree on some things. One of the benefits I spoke of, others being more willing to consider, agree with, or simply state that they agree with your ideas.  Good show.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  18:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

- We don't desysop at ANI. Saying that would likely be taken as being unnecessarily pointy and not working toward a realistic solution. And I freely admit I love that little graphic. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I more was soapboxing/promoting my general opinions about Admins and  desysop - I should stop that style of contribution also as it does not benefit me and is not the correct way to influence the community position on the issue either.  You  really  can  21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is actually twofold. First, it makes you look like a reactionary, so it actually makes you LESS persuasive in all discussions, as you can't be "trusted" to be objective or neutral.  Second, it can undermine the current discussion, which actually makes it harder for uninvolved admins to do their jobs, which doesn't endear you to them as well.  That is the point behind WP:POINT.  It isn't that I don't have strong feelings about things, it is that I try to not wear them on my sleeve, to make them obvious, so that the merits of my arguments will be considered fully.  In the end, I am able to persuade others because they feel they can trust my objectivity.  And people who don't want to dig in and find the facts and just !vote, well, they listen to the most rational and best reasoned people and vote accordingly.  I have opinions about the situation, but you probably don't know what they are.  This is intentional.  When the time comes that I need to express it, I will in a calm, cool, collected way that is more likely to persuade others on the fence.  I can't persuade those with a fixed opinion, only those that are open minded, and only if I always refrain from airing my opinions all over the place.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it
Now that we are settled in, I would suggest daily taking one or two sections in the general prose area, completely rewriting it and signing it. Or add another one that addresses something you think you need reminders about. I was bit rushed when I wrote them, and I have found that the act of writing, rewriting, and fine tuning things has a way of allowing it to stick in the mind. It helps a person focus on the ideas, which is part of developing new habits. Expand or change to tastes, shorter or longer is fine, the key is to have it expressed in a way that makes the most sense to YOU, so that it can serve as a reminder to yourself. I keep lists like this in the real world to help me work on my own shortcomings, I find it useful. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

White trash
I've looked quickly and I don't see any problems. I could quibble over individual words, but that isn't helpful now. At this point, I recommend letting the issue be settled at BLP and don't make any contentious edits on the article until then. One of the benefits of all your Jedi training is that people should be more willing to look at your perspective as you've kept it mainly neutral (mainly) at BLP. I can't edit or comment there, but I will just say it doesn't look like a cut and dry situation, there are nuances since they aren't real names, but there are other considerations (I'm no expert, I just know it isn't a slam dunk either way at this point). Some might disagree with you at first, but then come around, so don't piss anyone off. This is where calm, short and highly focused discussion pays off. Ignore his threats, they are either idle or if he is silly enough to go to ANI, then don't go there. Give others the opportunity to take your side without you asking. You haven't done anything wrong that I can see. I can't make a judgement as to his faith or intentions, but I know some will either bait you, or use idle threats to get you to back down. You don't need to risk reacting to either, as the threat isn't real.

Normally, in a heated discussion, this is where I start smiling because when another person has to start threatening you, it means they are running out of ideas or faith in their ideas. This is where I typically get very calm. Rational. Objective. Let the other person get pissy and never respond to it. If they ask a snarky question, you respond with a cool rational answer. You aren't trying to convince them. Don't waste your time. You are trying to convince everyone else who is undecided. (ie: DGG style). This is the difficult part. Cool down first, slow down, take an hour before responding. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - Dennis - "You haven't done anything wrong that I can see." - but I have been accused by the User:Rjensen of WP:vandalism, WP:malicious editing and WP:harassment -  You  really  can  22:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If he wants to provide diffs, then I can look at them, but I didn't see any. I will check some more tomorrow.  I don't know how experienced he is, but if you know you are acting in good faith and keeping it low key, then I wouldn't worry.  I see people call edits "vandalism" and such all the time, due to the lack of understanding what the term means, so trust me that Wikipedia is rife with mislabeled actions.  If someone calls me a flying pig, that doesn't make me one.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow up on Amber L. Hollibaugh
I asked DGG to review it, he has and made some minor edits. See his talk page for info. He is pretty conservative when it comes to BLP concerns, so I tend to trust his judgement on these issues. He also also commented on the article talk page. Observing would be a good idea. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish concerns
I might have worded this differently:

"Clearly he's a person of Jewish descent - that is the WP:BLP. take care as to reporting as if fact about living people - position simple really- move along, - Bbb23 is right, our Jew issues are vague/disruptive and need clarifying - If users want to add that someone is a mother line Jew then the cat should clearly state that - Matriarchal Jew - Youreallycan 22:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)"

Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the rudeness of the other editor (but addressing them on my talk page) we address the fact that Jewish is not Jew. Yes, we handle ethnicity with a little more care, and avoid talking in short hand.  Most people will get what you meant, but there is a significant minority that would take offense at the phrasing.  For the purpose of keeping a neutral tone, you should take a little more time when replying.  Remember, haste is our enemy.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, A Quest summed it up best: Using "jew" as an adjective is offensive, although I understand that you didn't mean it that way. Not a behavioral issue, just something to remember to prevent any behavioral issues from others you are discussing with. Might be worth you modifying your comment.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis - I made a corrective strike and explanatory note - I will focus more on this page and your email comments over the next few days rather than any article edits - Very best regards to you from - You  really  can  17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Humble pie
Even I must humble eat from time to time, as my talk page discussion with DGG will indicate. DGG was fairly strong in his criticism of me, and it was a grey-area issue, but more importantly was his point that I was getting too rigid in my thinking during the conversation. How I chose to deal with it was based on what I talk about here. And yesterday, I was fairly kind to you, and you are moving in the right direction, even if you aren't quite there yet. I don't feel that nitpicking over every word is helpful, you are capable of looking back and determining a few minor points that could have been handled a little differently on your own. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  14:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Update 6-7-2012
Reading through your contribs a little, not everything, just bouncing around and wanted to make a couple of observations.

1. It is exceedingly obvious that you have made a great deal of progress in expressing your self more clearly, more thoughtfully and in a more neutral and civil tone. Overall, I'm quite impressed. There is no need to nitpick as the overall difference between a few weeks ago and now is dramatic and it is clear you understand and are addressing the problem.

2. You seem to be willing to defer to others opinions a little more, without necessarily "giving in" on your own. This includes sometimes simply agreeing with another's position, without laboring it, and realizing when you are in the minority and "can't win", so you let it go, to maybe consider it another day. This is a good thing as it makes you friends along the way. You never sound "unhappy" or "mad", which is perfect, as your emotions aren't persuasive, your ideas are.

3. Others are already taking your comments more seriously, showing you more respect, and considering your ideas more readily. This is probably obvious to you as well. Those that know you and have fixed opinions, it will take more time, but that is fine as time is on your side when you are moving in the right direction. This is part of the big payoff for the effort you have put into this.

Again, I'm very optimistic about the future and happy for you. I know it takes a measure of self-control, but I can already see the benefits to you in how others approach you, even when they disagree. The key is to continue to be vigilant and consistent, continue to approach each comment with the same patience and thoughtfulness, and let it become habit through repetition. This is what I have told you here and in private: When you have a good argument and you can come across with conviction in a calm and thoughtful manner, people are persuaded or will at least consider your perspective more readily, which makes aggressive speech a non-option because it would be less effective. We are half way there. Of course, the learning will continue even when my assistance isn't needed anymore. Damn good job. It is worth repeating: I'm impressed. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw the ANI after I wrote this. Probably wouldn't have done that personally, but it is your right if that is what you choose.  It may make you look impatient and in a negative light, however.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was a bit gruff, but you did yourself no favors here, and again, it isn't enough to be "right". There is an art to quitting when you are behind.  Perhaps this will just be a learning experience. :/   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Now that this is behind you most of a day, I would say this was a step back.  It isn't about being right or wrong, it is about being careful to not unnecessarily flog the process, if only because it isn't effective and won't ever get the results you want.  If you know you are going to be outnumbered on an issue, then you might consider finding different ways to deal with the situation, or simply tolerating it.  It hurts you to jump to ANI that way, as it is very public and risky with little chance of success.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  14:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - that was and is the type of attention attracting idea with no chance of successful outcome that I need to stop making/full stop - I will put your advice about such contributions at the top of my (avoid) list - thanks Dennis -  You  really  can  18:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

July 8 - It takes more than just being right, to be right
The recent brush up centers around the problem of being right, ironically. Ignoring the block, you were a bit brash in reverting closings and baiting a little bit on Magog's page. I don't need to hammer on these points, I think you understand the problem, but it shooting yourself in your own foot. In this case, you were completely right on the technical points but undermined your position by your methods. You have to remember to walk away when your blood pressure gets up. What happens is that someone cuts you off, then it spirals out of control. Yes, to allow yourself to be cut off is frustrating, but the way to deal with that is to have a tea, come back level headed, and work the problem on talk pages, not ANI. ANI hasn't been kind to you, you might want to consider avoiding it as it isn't a venue conducive to you accomplishing things. I spend half my time at ANI shutting down the discussion and dealing with the problem on the user's talk page, since that is the better way to deal with the problem. In this case, dealing with it on admin's talk pages after it was shut down, in a calm, collected manner would have been better. Wikipedia isn't going to burn down if it takes an extra day to fix copyright issue, and dealing with them brashly actually makes it less likely that they will get fixed. Here I would ask you detail out a bit on what you think you should have done. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  12:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I should,t have got so involved - the user wikiwatcher has a lot of copyright upload problems and I would like him to not upload any more untill the current issues are resolved - see Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 I tried discussion with them on the polanski talkpage but after I removed his upload he just reverted it back in Talk:Roman_Polanski so I opened a report at - your correct when you say it doesn't help to be right, I care too much that's my problem - and wiki process is so weak and drawn out I get frustrated I care that this user is continuing on in the same manner while others work to clean through their dubious uploads. I was further upset by being told to to grow a backbone on a high profile noticeboard Its a demeaning a insult imo. I think you are right I will avoid posting reports there completely saving to support or oppose the reports of others with a single comment post,, I shouldn't has replaced my post to the users talkpage - it was all downhill for me from there. I agree with you that the whole situation was far from optimal/ I got myself blocker for a week and the copyright violator remained free to continue uploading whatever they want. My one revert condition has been protecting me from blocks on article contributions and I need to remind myself and make sure I apply it to talkpages as required as well. You really  can  13:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the copyright infringement, lets take a look and see if there is a problem. I will go peek in myself.  Searching photos for copyright infringement is part of my job, so I'm familiar with the process of searching and well as copyright law in general.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What a blessing to have a mentor to undo a block. We should all have one!  YRC, here's something from the late-lamented Christopher Hitchens, whose humanity and intellectual rigor made him an exemplary mentor to all who cared to read and listen, in his  Letters to a Young Wikipedian:


 * "I suggest you learn to recognise and avoid the symptoms of the zealot and the person who knows he is right. For the dissenter, the skeptical mentality is at least as important as any armor of principle."
 * Here's hoping it all works out for you. Writegeist (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks - I also enjoyed my little wiki encounter and chats with Mr Hitchens - Peter Hitchens that is, another fine principled person of intellect - You  really  can  04:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, Hitchens Minor :-) . Writegeist (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We all make mistakes, even when we are right on the subject matter. I appreciate the faith in "unblocking him", but the credit is to YRC for having participated in good faith here previously, so it was earned in my opinion.  The occasional backslide happens, and there were mistakes all around the event as well.  For now, I just want to focus on YRC working again on communications, as for the most part, he has been doing quite well.  A review of some of the hidden material above would be a good idea.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  15:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was struck by the candor, and amused by the excruciating politeness, in the first part of your third sentence; then realized I'd misread "backslides" as "backsides". I trust YRC isn't taking re-education camp too seriously. "They say, best men are moulded out of faults, and, for the most, become much more the better for being a little bad." Writegeist (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You got mail
A section for YRC and his mentor or any other user involved in this constructive process to let others know a email communication has been sent.


 * - Dennis YGMail - You  really  can  22:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)  done
 * I've replied to your email.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've sent another re: the BLP concern.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read the last one and will look - A lot of content I will put more of my wiki time/energy into our work - I will read all our communications and get back to you - V B regards - You  really  can  17:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis - YGM regarding this discussion - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - You  really  can  18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested that I comment here about the discussion YRC links to. There's a certain incoherence in the notion that YRC wants a "voluntary interaction ban" combined with the fact that he repeatedly (and voluntarily) engaged in discussion with me in that section.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, he did fix his broken tag and it might have looked like shouting, but maybe we just move beyond that point. It is clear that it was a simple misunderstanding due to a borked tag. Mistakes happen, what matters isn't the code he left out in the first edit, it is the meaning behind them. You both have to just allow that the other made a minor mistake. In other words, pretend it didn't happen and move on because no ill was intended by either party, and it is the discussion that matters. You both need to remember that we ALL are on the same team, even if you have different ideas and on different sides of a singular phrase. No one wants to harm anyone, no one wants a subpar article. I can see both sides of the BLP argument here, and in my limited expertise of BLP, this is a borderline case, almost textbook. I've read the entire case over there, but think it would be better if I don't jump in there and let the invested editors decide, so I will limit my comments to this page.
 * I can provide a lot of diifs for this issue Dennis - The user has refused repeatedly my request to him for a voluntary interaction ban - I am currently in a position of self avoiding almost all / most threads he posts in - This user has been attacking me repeatedly with similar comments as the one above for a couple of years - Incoherant - (of a person) Unable to speak intelligibly. - that is a demeaning assertion imo and I can find you plenty of others from this user.  I still would appreciate a voluntary interaction ban  if the issue can't finally be resolved here through simple good faith discussion I would like to present an official case for one -  You  really  can  19:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people will have no difficulty perceiving that "incoherence" was said not about a person but about a notion. The comment was not intended as demeaning, and the fact that it was taken as such signals a different sort of problem.  And again, I did not solicit YRC's responses to me in that section -- they were freely (voluntarily) offered.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That said, as a general rule, in a case like this where it is truly a 50/50 decision, I tend to err on the conservative side during a trial. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, policy or not policy, it is a matter of human dignity and I would always err on the side of preserving the dignity of those who have died and/or are accused as long as it isn't counter to sources. Whatever the consensus decides, I think this moral code is more important than any article, as the first rule of biographies is "do no harm", even when telling the truth. I do have a userbox to this effect on my user page, so please don't feel I'm taking sides, because I'm not. I don't have a preferred version, but I just hope that as a community, we keep this principal in mind when deciding on a final version, even if that final version changes after the trial. Sometimes this means I live with an edit I don't prefer for a while, which could mean either of you, in the name of getting along, being fair, and accepting consensus. Of course, you are free to ignore my perspectives, and this isn't my opinion as an admin, or even as an editor, but as a fellow human being. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  23:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack
A user has called me an asshole - his comment was followed by another user repeating the insult - I asked the second user to retract which they did - I have asked the first user to retract User_talk:Maunus but they have not done so - diff - what should I do Dennis - its not that I can't take it - but - its important as if i am to be called an asshole on a major noticeboard and nobody does anything - then it lowers standards so as calling other editors assholes becomes acceptable - which its not is it Dennis? - if I am allowed to be called an asshole then I am allowed to call other editors assholes without recriminations? You really  can  15:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what you did here is what you needed to do, you asked him to retract it, you moved on and stayed on topic. Letting it degrade into a pissing match will serve no purpose and doesn't make you look good.  I've redacted that portion and left him a note on his talk page.  Getting strong with him would only serve to ramp up the drama, so I would prefer this first notice to be polite and simply point out the obvious.  I also made it obvious that this behavior isn't acceptable without myself being dickish to him, hopefully encouraging him to follow suit.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to respond in kind but held back - that is my strength when I follow that cool approach - the User:Maunus immediately after the dispute/discussion made this attacking policy violating edit to a BLP - diff which I was forced to revert - Jonny is  an American ex-convict  - lol -  You  really  can  16:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (stalker) Now we all know who called you what, really ;) (Do you remember what you called me?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - please provide a diff so we can resolve this - thanks - You  really  can  17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * resolved on my talk, thanks, hope you don't get too deep in the WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) My experience: it seems like a waste of time, but you grow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to wake up to seeing you in the swamp. But what's a week? Time to think, maybe? - Mixed thoughts: Did you know that we have a picture for those who shouldn't be blocked? - The diff you asked above: I didn't want to supply it because it is on another user's talk and he deleted it rather promptly, so in a way it's too private, do you understand? (If you can't answer here you can copy to your talk.) - If you have time you can read my archived talk about the Great Dismal Swamp, I am very happy that it's past. - For the future: what do think about a zero-revert time, discussing things on article discussion and/or ask someone else? - If you see too often that someone deletes your entry on a user talk, perhaps think to word things simpler? Many - like me - don't speak English as a native language. - I believe that you really can do constructive editing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Watcha doing here, Gerda? That link to my old page isn't fitting for YRC. I'm slightly miffed ;/ Some people should be blocked and for longer than a week. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The creative mind has spoken. What I'm doing here? Support Dennis, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting user talk pages

 * - Admin Magog the ogre talkpage reverts

You know better YRC, you can't do that and expect someone not to get upset. That might have been your intention, but it isn't the right way to deal with the issue. You made your point, I saw it before he reverted out, and you shouldn't be reverting talk pages for the simple reason that you know it will lead to trouble. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  16:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That Admin attacked me and is in dispute with me - he needs to stay away from me - My discussion with Fae is nothing to do with him - He was the user that escalated the issue by reverting my additions to another users talkpage claiming "grave dancing" diff a claim that has been revealed as mistaken  - as an admin he should not ever remove good faith complaints about his behavior from his user page  - especially even without an explanatory comment/edit summary at all -  You  really  can  16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just saw that revert on Fae's page, had to check the history. I wouldn't have reverted your comment myself, although it was hard to tell your perspective until Fae replied to you.  I think he meant well and believe he really thought you were grave dancing, when it did look strong, but it is from a lack of understanding of your relationship with Fae.  The tit for tat still isn't a good idea for your own health.  Not commenting on the content (as I never do, that is beyond what I'm here for) but you need to be careful and avoid reverting on anyone's OWN talk page if they delete out your comment.  Regardless of content, you know how that looks.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - especially even without an explanatory comment/edit summary at all - when I replaced his totally unexplained removal I added an additional question to that effect but the user/admin Magog the ogre just removed it again without any explanitory edit summary - diff -  You  really  can  16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that. I left him a note on the Fae revert.  Not sure what brought him there to begin with, but he did jump to conclusions a bit.  As for his talk page, it is his talk page and he can delete or archive whatever he wants.  You know he has read it if he deletes it, after all.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - I only replaced it once after he removed my complaint about his actions without even a edit summary and when I replaced it I added a question - he just deleted it again without an edit summary and as the user/admin Magog the Ogre had escalated to revert warring on another page I stepped back - You  really  can  16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Block
I see you picked up a block here. YRC, have you just completely gone off the deep end here? Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  23:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)