Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Muscle cars and fast food

Just in case you didn't know, your article will be on the main page in 19 minutes. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although some of the sources at glance look a little dubious "About McDonalds" and "We did it for love" and such. Are those definitely RS? It's easily GA class and clearly a future FA, but I think it probably needs further book/journal research if it is to reach FA, it's quite a broad topic. Do you have JSTOR access? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't not have jstor access, although I do have access to NC libraries online. You are correct that some of the sources are fine for anything short of an FA and will need to be replaced. Keep in mind, this whole journey is an intentional learning experience on many different levels. In order to be a decent admin, I think it is important I take this journey as far as I can. I don't need to become an expert in all areas, but I do need to become familiar enough with the DYK, GA and FA processes, at least enough to explain it or empathize with my fellow editors, so I can help them. I need to get at least one of each, then eventually review a few DYKs and maybe eventually review a GA as well. I don't have to rush (I started planning the article in the summer, and writing in October) but this currently has momentum and is serving other purposes as well. ie: it has a lot of people excited about it and is bringing out the best in them. That alone makes it worth the effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1950s American automobile culture

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Telling everybody how much I like this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! I've had a tremendous amount of help with the article and couldn't have done it without it. We still have a ways to go, but it is the best looking DYK I've ever been involved with, thanks to Malleus and others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You attention seeker you, this single DYK has probably got more attention than any in wikipedia's history!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, probably my greatest accomplishment here was choosing a very interesting topic that everyone wants to help out with. The 1950s are so romanticized, yet genuinely were a pivotal time. I could do a whole series of articles on the 1950s and cultural change, and may. I'm already working on the companion to this article, 1950s American automobile manufacturing, which forcuses on the birth of AMC and the end of the independents. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for all your hard work on 1950s American automobile culture. It is the kind of article that makes me proud to be a Wikipedian. Please accept this barnstar as a small token of my appreciation. Michael Barera (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a super award Dennis, greatly appreciated. This barnstar seconded for your recent superb work on this article, and I wish you the best for getting it up to FA status!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tongva people and User talk:Twin twin02

Could you take a look at this situation: new editor, apparent SPA, pushing a POV (over what to call a Native American tribe), making incompetent edits, and not responding to my comments on their talk page. There's a discussion about the issue on the article's talk page, but no consensus about what to do that I can see. I've reverted a couple of times and don't want to get into an edit war, so I'd like to de-list the article knowing that a competent third party (you) is going to take a look. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Dennis,

Thanks for your welcome to a fellow Carolinian. I grew up in Anson County. I see you write a lot about my new home County - Davidson. I have read some of your articles and enjoyed them immensely. Don't think I will ever be as prolific in Writing as you have been.

Thanks for the welcome.

CarolinaHistory (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Charlie Purvis aka CarolinaHistory

  • Well, I've been here 7 years, so give it time. I also live in Davidson County, Lexington to be specific. I get together some times with other Wikipedians for a little barbecue as well. Don't feel any pressure to live up to expectations on creating tons of stuff, every little bit helps, and I'm just glad to see new editors that enjoy helping at whatever level they are comfortable with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps closing Sandy Hook thread

Dennis, for some reason someone keeps closing/hatting Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Why_is_not_mentioned_that_he_is_Jewish.3F with the reason as "nonsense". I reverted it and noted that even an admin (you) is participating in the discussion. Just wanted to make you aware of this in case they try to close it again. Thanks! --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw it but it isn't a level that requires I get involved just yet. An admin's job isn't to police discussion, and is only to insure it can take place on a level playing field, which means patience and tolerance in allowing the non-admins to work things out on their own if they can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't write you because you're an admin I wrote you because you're participating in the discussion and are a very experienced editor. Btw, the religion thread is very interesting to me. Personally, I don't really care whether his religion is included or not; I'm just trying to address the editor's question from an unbiased standpoint. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand. I'm the admin that semi-protected the page, which means I can't participate as an 'editor' there, which is why I mentioned it. ie: I can't edit the article even if I wanted to. What I am trying to do is help explain policy, offer some understanding as to why policy is what it is, and explain what is required in order to include this kind of material. In otherwords, not to vote or say "no", but to explain what policy says must be met in order to add to the article. From my interpretation of policy, it is very clear here that we have to have a reason to include things like religion, political party affiliation, or any other fact that is known to be divisive or could be interpreted as hate mongering. Mediation is a great deal of how I spend my time here, and I really don't care what the final content is as long as it is fair, within policy, and represents an accurate overview of the event. I would assume that once his biography is split off from this article (which will happen) then a mention of his religion would be perfectly fine if it is sourced. But his religion isn't relative to the event itself, or at least no one has shown it is. If he did this act due to religious differences between himself and the people killed, then obviously his religion would be relevant, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you protected it. Nice job. In terms of religion, my only confusion with your rationale is equating religion with inflammatory content. It's only inflammatory if someone presents in a way that purposely makes it inflammatory. But simply stating it as a factual biographical piece of information is 100% neutral. It's no different than saying where he grew up, how many siblings he had, what schools he attended, what his hobbies were, etc. All neutral facts. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
That might be true in normal circumstances, but we're still in the heat of the moment here. No one really knows why Lanza did it, and people will latch on to anything that might serve to "explain" it. People are already concerned about a backlash against autistic people or those with Asperger's, because these conditions have been mentioned in connection with Lanza, and the inclusion of his religion (assuming there is even a reliable source for it in the first place) at this time would have an even stronger effect. There are people who will say that that religion, whatever it is, was a factor in what happened, and Wikipedia doesn't need to be a party to that kind of response.

I would say that later, some weeks or months from now, when much more information has come out, and the motive and background of the event are better understood, a straight-forward and factual presentation of his religion would not be a problem, but it's not called for now, as it is both potentially inflammatory and of unknown relevance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The shooters religion has, at this early point in the investigation, absolutely ZERO to do with the shooting. To mention it is inflammitory and will have the effect of inciting religious bigotry. Should we mention that he was 6 feet tall, or that he wore a size 36 x 28 trouser? His height and pant size are facts but have nothing to do with the shooting. Same with his religion. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesyboy2468

Hey Dennis! I have filed an SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesyboy2468. Another interesting and complex case filled out with all the evidence and information on the SPI page. I believe this won't be too hard for you to give it a yes :). Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Careful, you don't want anyone to think you are shopping. I'm a little tied mediating at the moment but will take a look later if no one else has. That, and I'm on enough drugs to fell a rhino due to having the worst allergy attack in two decades. If I wasn't feeling so bad, I would be feeling pretty dang good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I understand what you are saying Dennis, but I never even thought of doing anything like that. I would never even think of violating any Wikipedia policy or guideline in my dreams. I saw the edit-notice when i was posting on your talk page and it seemed like you were/are going to be a bit busy, so I thought of giving another active SPI clerk a notice about the SPI case because the last case which I had filed hadn't been edited by anyone for three days and it's status remained unchanged until i informed you. I hope you and everyone believe that everything that I do and doing are in positive good faith and for betterment of the project. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      • On another note, I hope you get well soon and be able to continue to enjoy your normal life :). Best Wishes. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I completely believe you and wasn't offended by the comments in the least. My comment wasn't a warning, just a friendly bit of advice that some people will jump on anything they can and point fingers. The key is in not requesting a particular outcome and keeping the comment as bland as a template. SPI has been very slow lately, and Arb has as well, so I see the Arbs jumping in and taking on cases as well. Customer service has gone up dramatically over there. Don't get used to it, granted, but it is nice while it lasts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting.
Message added 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You might be interested to notice one IP is insistent that you didn't have the authority to close the "Why is his religion not mentioned?" section on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting talk page and keeps removing your archive template to explain at length how you and another closer are violating procedure. Pstanton (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please unprotect Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for edit

Recent history before your semi-protection did not show enough disruption to warrant it. Please unprotect. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy

Could you or a TPS delete Talk:Veganism/GA1 (IPs cannot review GAs)? Thanks. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

==tention|Join WER]] 15:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Accolades at Sandy Hook Elementory

Some IP editor w/ 1 days existence is hatting my support of fewllow editors. I am willing to tske this to the highesgt court but would rather have the situation resolved before an edit war erupts. Thank you. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • No need for drama, I will take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Check my talk. He has taken it to ANI. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The threshold for all admin on an article like this is going to be much lower. There are lots of eyes on the article, so it is best to just trust we will catch it in time, and insure you don't make it worse by overreacting. I've warned him twice. I don't expect to warn a third time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • (EC) Completely unrelated to any "hatting" but pertinent to WER, Articles like Sandy Hook are bubbling with editor interest. Threads grow and conversation is at a fevers pitch. There is something happening all the time. With that come editor interplays from thraead to thread which are not always friendly. I like to take on the role of sergeant-at-arms; keeping editors heads in the construction and off of the constant contrary positioning with the same editor. Its just a "job well done" and a "pat on the back'. To ALL editors by an observder...not a participant in the arguing. It helps retain editors. Thaks again. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Some advice?

I wanted to get some advice from you with regard to a new editor, Jack Dikian. The editor in question has made no edits to WP except to his own user page (he has also, more recently, edited via an IP address which has the same editing history). The original version of his user page was unambiguously promotional and had a number of significant WP:FAKEARTICLE characteristics. This was pointed out and the content removed. Neither the user nor the IP have made any attempt to reinsert that material or revert the changes or insert other "fake article" attributes. But the IP has continued to edit the user page and no other page and the user page once again is starting to look like soft redirect to the author's personal website. I found the user page on a random new page patrol and few other editors have seen it or taken action. I'm conscious that this may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue, rather than any form of disruptive editing. The editor has not engaged on his talk page (where I have left a couple of messages) but I don't consider this evasiveness - I just don't think he knows how WP works. I'm just getting concerned that my (it's really only me at the moment) ongoing engagement might be seen as WP:BITEY or come off looking like one person has picked a fight with the guy. His talk page is all me so far! I think (given his writing style and areas of interest) he could be a valuable contributor if only he could be directed towards some non-self-focussed editing. Given your WER work I thought you might be the right person to raise this with. I understand entirely, though, if you're busy and need to direct me elsewhere. Your advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

  • Ok, his user page as is won't be a problem. I left him a message, then left the IP a message. The IP User talk:49.176.226.31 has a link on that talk page called "geolocate", which tells you that is a permanent or static IP, in Coorparoo, Queensland, Australia. This is consistent with what he put on his user page. I've basically taken a soft approach because I don't see him trying to do anything wrong, so instead I'm attempting to fully engage him via both accounts. I don't use a lot of templates, you might note. As a matter of fact, admin duties force you to use them all the time, but they are still less than 10% of my edits. In cases like this, where the odds are that this is a new editor that is just not aware of our policies, it is better to get creative on the talk page with a friendly message. If that didn't work, I put a 600x600 pixel stop sign image on his talk pages, with a friendly but clear warning, but I don't see a current issue that needs warning. He may never answer and just wanted to put that link up on his user page, who knows, but the limited info he currently has up there is acceptable and isn't overly promotional. Some may disagree, but I just don't see a few paragraphs being a big deal. If I added that much to my user page along with the other wiki stuff, no one would blink an eye, so I try to be fair about it. If it keeps growing, we can address it then. The other IP in the history may just be another place he works from, same region but a few miles away. In short, if they aren't hurting Wikipedia, I try to go overboard with charm and niceness. It isn't required, but who knows, he could end up being a good contributor one day. If not, the page isn't THAT bad and it didn't kill me to be nice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Anytime, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding references

Hi Dennis,

I received an email from you today regarding my user page Jack Dikian. I'm really lost as to what I can and cannot do with this page and struggling to ensure that I don't get blocked. I appreciate your remarks (although I'm not sure whether you are suggesting I do the edits or that you will). I can't see any edits on my page other than what I had performed last night.

I'm more than happy for you to edit out what you believe is inappropriate. I truly am coming at this from a place of naivety and not looking to break an/or get around your usage protocols.

I fact I just worked out how to contact you using "talk".

I appreciate your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Dikian (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

2005 Article in Reactions section of S.H.E.S.

New editor Special:Contributions/Bigh_Whigh has inserted a 2005 article in the Reactions section three times today, 1 2 3. Would you be willing to help them along with understanding the consensus process? I fear that if I revert them again, they'll just promptly re-insert their preferred addition once more without understanding WP:3RR. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help... I took a break from editing for the evening after my comment above and returned to find that the editor apparently got blocked by another admin for further reverts. Sorry to have dragged you into the situation, I know it's an unwanted distraction when you're trying to concentrate on article edits and edit warring flares up. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No apology needed, I appreciated the info. I'm trying to just help so that the editors themselves can edit in peace without edit warring and such. It is a heated topic, these things will happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop sign

Dennis: A suggestion - when you leave your stop sign message on user talk pages, you might want to add {{clear left}} at the end of the text, so that the next posted item will display below the stop sign instead of being indented. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your efforts to keep things cool and policy-following at the Sandy Hook talk page. Lots of emotion + lots of new people + rapidly changing information = recipe for a mess. Thanks for helping keep it as unmessy as possible. LadyofShalott 02:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. I've dropped all regular editing this weekend, as I figured the best contribution I could give was to not edit that article, but just direct traffic, answer questions and try to keep the peace. I'm actually quite happy that a number of editors have been helping, and the vast majority of experienced editors have responded with understanding and patience. Thank you for the kind words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing redefined?

I have no effing idea what you mean? This edit? Take a good long look at the useless speculative comment I removed. *That* is soapboxing, not my removal of it. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No prob. The first cup never quite does the trick, does it. :D --213.196.218.39 (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mdp0007

Question: should blocked, unable to edit own talk page users be able to send Wiki-email? You blocked Mdp0007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few days ago and, apparently, removed his ability to edit his talk page. I just received an email from him (see quote/italics below - presumably a response to my revert here diff). The email was not threatening, it is rather strange. Given his history, he might be phishing for my email address. I am not personally concerned about getting email from banned editors, but it seems that if email is not blocked, they could continue to harass others. Did something fall through the cracks, or is there a system issue that should be addressed? Should I do something about this? Thanks for all of your hard admin work! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not understant why you reverted my edit's without FIRST telling me what I had done wrong?? I am a little new to this and maybe you should have taken the time to help me instead just blasting out my edit's first. I know Kathy very well and that edit has been documented by The New Scotland Yard. I am also very close to Billy Cox also. I do not have any idea why you did what you did. Can please explain what I did wrong and why would you not help me first?????? Mark Pagliaro

  • It is a funny thing. Blocking, revoking talk page access, revoking email privs, all three require three different reasons and rationales in order for an admin to block. Most blocks don't have talk page access taken away, and very seldom do we take away email. I don't suggest replying, and in this case I will remove email access, even though the reasoning is a bit thin. You would be shocked at how often we admin have to explain every little action we make, every block or revocation. I understand why, to prevent abuse, but it means we move forward cautiously. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ella

Thanks for the appreciation of the 1000 DYKs. Hehe if you ever feel fed up listen to a bit of Ella, this makes me feel happy as larry!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sophie Tucker 12:21 sooo cool!! I don't really think of Adele as a jazz singer, a pop singer, I suppose that's British promotion for you. I think she'd be great at some of the jazz standards. Christina Aguelera too, I've seen her do a bit of jazz and it was awesome, such a waste indulging in pop. My favourite jazz singer is Julie London, that schmoky voice, soo sexy!! Talking of important missing 50s stuff, found another embarrassing missing one, In Your Own Sweet Way. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for the work on Sandy Hook, which you did valiantly while giving up the body. Get well soon. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Closing of discussion

Hi there, I would like you to reconsider the decision to close the discussion found at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Associated_attack_in_China. Reading the comments, it seems that no consensus was reached, and some editors (including myself) probably have more to add to the discussion. Regards, —Entropy (T/C) 00:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The reason I close discussions is usually not because I think no one has anything more to add, but to simply make it clear the issue is closed. While consensus is an important part of the decision making at Wikipedia, we are still bound by policy. In this case, policy is clear that we don't make comparisons to unrelated events, it is an improper synthesis of sources. Even if most or all the people wanted it in, it would still be removed from the article. Often times closing is a way of simply stopping "drama" in cases like this were policy overrules consensus. A couple of admin had determined this needed to stop. If it had been other highly experienced editors, the result would have been the same: close the discussion because there is no possibility it will be included and further discussion is just causing distraction, which history shows will lead to disruption. On most article talk pages, discussions aren't closed very often, and this is something that is typically done only on highly trafficked talk pages like that one, as it tells readers they can skip over that area if they choose as the issue is settled. Not everyone likes that, and I respect that, but you have to trust that the information isn't going to be put in there, and any number of very experienced editors or admin would remove it instantly for being against policy. Consensus can't override policy. It was a dead horse issue that had gone on long enough, hence my close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Which policies in particular are you referring to? I don't think there was any synthesis of sources. A variety of sources exist drawing a potential link between the two events. The fact that that speculation exists is worth mentioning in the article. In fact, it is already mentioned in the other article (Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing). It doesn't make sense to mention the connection in one of the articles but not the other. You mention that policy overrules consensus in this case, but what policy are you talking about? The issue is not settled and debate exists elsewhere on the Sandy Hook talk page as well as on the Chenpeng Village talk page. I feel as though the idea that it's "beating a dead horse" is just your personal opinion on the matter. —Entropy (T/C) 02:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It is beating a dead horse. Making a comparison of the two, even if a source talked about it, isn't encyclopedic, it is just speculation. If the police or authorities draw a link and the sources cover it, then that would be different. As for the other issues and other articles, we deal with them one at a time. WP:OSE applies to that point. There are a couple dozen admin actively monitoring. If they felt it should be reopened, they would have done so. You are welcome to ask another one of the admin there to review it, such as User:Drmies or User:LadyofShalott or any others, but I'm pretty sure you will hear the same thing. Once we are no longer getting thousands of edits per day, and there has been confirmation of some link, then it would be possible to reconsider. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance and time. I'll contact another admin and continue in the still-open discussions on talk pages. —Entropy (T/C) 03:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

leonard oprea: ... do justice:

From: theophil magus <chapter17j@yahoo.com> To: Sue Gardner <donate@wikimedia.org>; ""info-en@wikimedia.org"" <info-en@wikimedia.org> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:06 PM Subject: Re: leonard oprea: Please, I need help: ATTACK ON THE PAGE! Again were erased all the reliable sources provided by Leonard Oprea. Why?!!

(cur | prev) 01:27, 17 December 2012‎ TheRedPenOfDoom(talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,448 bytes) (-2,994)‎ . .(the WP:REDFLAG extraordinary claim that Thomas is wrong brings all claims from this editor under question) (undo)


(cur | prev) 01:10, 17 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,442 bytes) (+59)‎ . .(leonard oprea: "life and career" , added "under the communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu" /on first line) (undo)(cur | prev) 01:01, 17 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,383 bytes) (+653)‎ . .(leonard oprea: new reliable sources concering "anti-communist dissident" and "offcially forbade writings"; please - do not cut off arbitrary; thank you) (undo)(cur | prev) 03:14, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,730 bytes) (+12)‎ . .(layout minor corrections) (undo)(cur | prev) 03:06, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,718 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (undo)(cur | prev) 03:04, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,706 bytes) (+69)‎ . .(Leonard Oprea: minor layout corrections) (undo)(cur | prev) 02:30, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,637 bytes) (+2,189)‎ . .(Leonard Oprea: having copies of Congressional Record, July 26, 1990 / "Thomas" is wrong!/ and all the other proven links and corrections - I did the mandatory corrections. Please, with all due respect, stop to cut arbitrary the proven links.Thank you.) (undo)

--Theophilmagus (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • First off, please do not show me headers that you donated to Wikipedia. At the very least, it is distasteful and this isn't the first time you've done this. Second, you are not under attack, an editor reverted you. From my experience, RedPen is a good faith editor, so I suggest you present you case (without the tacky header) on the talk page of the article and invite him to discuss it. If you can't hold a rational discussion based on the merits of the edit, then it is moot as there isn't anything that could help you. Last, we admin are not charged with determining the content of the encyclopedia, the editors are. We just clean up the place and make sure everyone plays nice and shares their toys. We are not the final arbiters of content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cambria (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cambria (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambria (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun photo

Can you look at the comments at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Picture of rifle used in the Weapons section of the article? I suggested File:Bushmaster.jpg (That's assuming an image is used, which is a separate issue that I didn't address although my comment probably implies that I support an image which I actually haven't given any thought to). In any case, I thought as an FFL dealer you might know more than the rest of us. Ryan Vesey

Thanks for taking care of it. Ryan Vesey

Thank you

For the 'heading' you used when you closed this discussion. It's a sad subject but your comment lightened my mood a little bit. Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It is a terrible incident for sure, and I hesitated, but seeing that the section was limited to them almost arresting the wrong guy, I felt it was ok. We all have to remember to not take ourselves too seriously, even as we take the event very seriously. Thanks for the note. It has been hectic over there trying to help direct traffic and just keep things running smoothly so discussion can take place peacefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

7 Up Silo

I found a collection of 7 up silo images on flickr for use in the article on Cambria [4]. None of the images are free, but one is more free than the others [5]. (Actually, would the logo be considered de minimis or is every image of the silo non-free?) Either way, the question is, do we use the most free image, or use the best image since none of them are free? Ryan Vesey 07:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Meh, probably just need to get a standard logo under fair use. I think it will be kept now. It had been so long since I touched that article, I wasn't sure what to expect, but you did a great job of digging up sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

please address - ip is soapboxing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Parents_and_brother_are_all_registered_Republicans.2C_according_to_public_records thanksHammerFilmFan (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm in bed sick watching TV, so I may not as responsive as usual. I will check back from time to time. I did leave a message there making it clear that adding his political party without any evidence it played a role is not going to happen. I hate to speak so definitively, but felt I could with confidence on this point. We certainly don't need more people trying to exploit this situation by injecting their politics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Get better soon mate!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can check out some The Avengers (TV series) and Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased), both classics.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Problem

Hey Dennis, got a MAJOR problem that could effect hundreds of articles. Back in 2008, Neilsen issued a DMCA Takedown Notice via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854, which wiped out their media market information from hundreds of pages. The MAJOR problem at hand Nielsen just bought Arbitron for $1.26 billion and with Arbitron issuing radio media market information, that DMCA Takedown Notice will carry over. We have to remove all Arbitron information from all pages ASAP per OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. Is there a bot available to do this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You may well be right, but have you checked this out? I don't have access to the ticket, which makes me think it's still in legal's queue. I would suggest emailing them and letting them worry about it. DMCA tickets have strict rules which need to be followed for reporting and I don't know how carrying over tickets works. WormTT(talk) 12:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, last time, legal let all the templates be taken down and several pages (which all had to be rebuilt) and didn't fight it. They would probably do the same again. Let me see if I can get someone to read the ticket, got to track down an OTRS editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm an OTRS editor, yet I do not have access to that ticket, so I assume it is in the legal queue. I also doubt they did not fight it, but that's neither here nor there. Until we have something from legal, I wouldn't worry about any article/template changes - though a bit of warning for the relevant wikiprojects that this is likely to be coming up wouldn't go amiss. For now, email legal@wikimedia.org, or drop User:Geoffbrigham or User:Philippe (WMF) a note highlighting your concerns. I'd trust either of them to know what's best to do WormTT(talk) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought you were meaning you couldn't see it as an admin. My goof. :) Anywho, back in 2008, from what I heard Godwin decided not to fight either the DCMA notice/OTRS ticket and just let it all take effect. I guess TV stations weren't that important. Godwin was in a PR battle over an FBI shield or something if I remember correctly. Anyway, it didn't get fought, so we had to rebuilt everything within the parameters of the ticket. I emailed legal and Philippe just a moment ago. Philippe is normally around all the time, so I hope to get a reply soon. I will alert WP:WPRS of the pending issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:WPRS updated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't currently have OTRS access, although I was considering asking for it just the other day, since it would be in line with my other activities. I'm too ignorant of the underlying issues to have an opinion here, although I will try to take a look and educate myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised by that Dennis and I recommend that you do ask for access. It's a very fulfilling way to spend time as it does give you a customer service perspective to the encyclopedia and keeps your mind on who the end user is. WormTT(talk) 13:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I may do that today. I get a lot of "customer service" experience via WER, ANI and through my other activities such as mediation, and well, just look at my talk page history. My talk page is pretty much a switchboard for helping people. I feel confident I can be of assistance there, although my time would be somewhat limited. Not having access has slowed me down when investigating certain issues such as this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an update: No response from legal or Philippe, but then again, it is only 6:13am in San Francisco (at Wikimedia World Headquarters), so that could be the reason there. I will keep an eye on it and let you all know.

If they do say the OTRS ticket will carry over, what should I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if Philippe were to say it carried over and not tell you what to do, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I think we'll need to look into what exactly happened last time. WormTT(talk) 14:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would hope it wouldn't carry over, but we will see what Philippe says. I have been up since 3a EST, so I am going to crash for a couple. I will check my email when I get up and update you all. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm IRCing with OTRS now about applying. They've never heard of me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You're clearly a nobody Dennis! Generally, you'll want to hit meta:OTRS/volunteering. I'd be happy to endorse you :) (of course, it's not a vote and my comments will hold little weight... well. maybe a little, they've heard of me) WormTT(talk) 14:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've got it and an email queued up (so they know I'm at least 16, just applied. The grey hair should be a giveaway). Think I will also add Photosubmissions, as I'm actually pretty adept at researching photo copyright issues per my job and experience at Commons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, my crashing "for a couple" turned out to be until 6:45p EST. In that time, no emails from Philippe or legal. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Where I come from, no messages from "legal" is a good thing. And Worm, I appreciate the kind words and support. Tiptoety is one of the OTRS admins, and my SPI trainer, so he knows me a little. If they feel I'm a good fit, they will, if not, I understand as well. I don't expect to be there full time, but think I have a few useful skills that would be helpful at times, and think the experience gained will help me be a better admin here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounding board

Not asking for any action, but I had to bring this to you as this was very irritating and I'll feel better getting it of my chest and not holding on to it. Admin User:Jc37 reverted a recent edit I made on BRD [6]. This was summarized only with links to the term "iteractive". I guess I am just an idiot for not knowing that the word itself was not a misspelling (when I added an n) and meant all of the contribution was worthless to the editor/admin. I don't see anything else wrong with the edit, so I have to wonder why they didn't just correct the error instead of becoming professor JC37 and removing all of the content. I suppose it is because they can. To me. that seemd like an un-necessary revert and I see it as edit warring. Again, not asking for action, but am I completely wrong here (not about the edit warring thing...thats just me opinion)? (also...I am not touching the page for a minimum of 24 hrs)--Amadscientist (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • He reverted the one change, not all your recent changes. Jc37 is definitely active on policy development and a stickler for details, so he tends to overview many of the policies here. Unquestionably, he has his reasons and did so in good faith, although I didn't really analyse the situation close enough to have an opinion on the edits (intentionally), and offering my opinion either way wouldn't really be a solution to this problem. Wait a day and just ask him about it. He is always willing to engage, maybe there is a reason that he wasn't able to fully articulate in the confines of a summary. Maybe you have a reason that he didn't get and could be persuaded. I would point you to WP:BRD but you already know where it is at ;-) I can't think of a better place to practice it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) Now that's funny: an edit war on Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't want to labor it since it isn't warring, but there is still a degree of irony involved that is hard to ignore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no doubt he is a wonder with policy developement, but that revert seemed more than a little "pointy" and I do not believe he was accurate with his assessment after the fact or his refusal to simply answer hwat I was discussing. That seemed like "I don't hear you". I also didn't like his moving my comment off his page, as that seemed more than uncivil. I feel it is best if I saty away from him and discuss this further with the editor that made the actual contribution I was attempting to adapt. He deserve the civil discussion. JC37 was being....less then at his best here. But again....I am just attempting to talk to you because you generally find a way to talk me down". LOL! (I guess he really just irked me too much)--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Jc37 and I have bumped heads before and he can be intense sometimes, but he is a smart guy and reasonable. I agree that waiting is best, there would be a personality clash if you went over with both of you not at your best. Jc can be persistent to the point of stubborn sometimes, but it isn't malice, he is just sometimes focused to a fault. You just have to be calm and patient. I'm the exact opposite and tend to look at the forest rather than the individual trees, and I'm quick to bend in the wind. It is just a difference in style. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, but your bending in the wind is the admirable trait I find worth emulating. Since our first encounter (between the two of us) I have seen more of my own faults needing attention and I feel I have only improved as an editor because of my interactions with you. Eventually I will get over the part of this that I am most concerned about. And you are absolutely right...waiting is best.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

and this edit - I agree, consensus is that the Phelps bunch doesn't get their WP mention. FYI, I am keeping an eye on the article and the talkpage...if this comes up again, I'll refer any adherents for including the 'news' (in advance of any actual newsworthy/notable Phelps events connected with Sandy Hook events) to the hatted discussion. Shearonink (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It is a tough balance to maintain. We want to be fair and include all viewpoints, but the cycle there is so fast and furious that it requires decisiveness as an admin as well. Hopefully, myself and others are achieving that balance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Note

I don't wish to interrupt your #Sounding board discussion above (which I only just now noticed), but merely wanted to note that, should this require it (though for a single revert, I would hope that open discussion could resolve it), I welcome you as mediating this, as we both appear to respect your thoughts. - jc37 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Another note

I once said of Mr Stradivarius that he could charm the wool off sheep. Well - you're giving him a run for his money today. You've said quite a few kind things about me today and I just wanted to express that. (Though of course, you could just be buttering me up for future mediation : ) - jc37 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hey Dennis, since you are an SPI clerk, could you give this SPI a look-see, please? It has been open since late on the 16th and hasn't been touched/looked at by any SPI clerks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Curious about some new articles

I keep an eye on the new articles pages to watch for North Carolina-related articles and found a curious issue. Don't really know where to go with this. Today, it looks like someone is creating a bunch of what I would call non-notable articles (which in and of itself isn't too big a problem). The articles are not well made (bad formatting, using WP:SYNTH and including a lot of extraneous info), but the main issue I have is that they are supposedly created by multiple users editing in exactly the same way. If it was just one user account, I could leave a message discussing the articles there. I think, however, these may be the same person using multiple accounts (they edit the same way and have much of the same info). However, if it is a class/student project, then I'd like to leave a message for the coordinator, giving them some info about how to edit on Wikipedia, but have no clue who that would be. Please look into the following articles and their users:

I guess I'd have to go through a group AfD for all of these if need be, but wanted to let you know of the bigger issue regarding the user(s) actions. Thank you! -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks like a class project. I'm not sure who coordinates these here, but they should let us know in advance. If the articles pass CSD, then even sloppy articles are better than none, but it will require a lot of clean up. I will try to find out more when I get home. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
True. Looking at it myself more, it does look like a class project. Just not sure why they chose these people to write articles on. I didn't want to bite newbies. Anyway, it just started to look like socking at first. I'm going to go ahead and add welcome messages to the users' talk pages. Maybe that can help some. They might be good editors for the NC WikiProject. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The common thread appears to be these folks were interviewed by the Federal Writers Project. You might want to ask editors over there if they know what's going on. GaramondLethe 22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Federal Writers' Project isn't a WikiProject, it no longer exists but was a (United States government) Federal public works project under Federal sponsorship from 1935 t0 1939 and then under sponsorship of the individual states until 1943. But yeah, looks like a class project or some such. I looked through a few of the articles and their subjects didn't really look at all notable. Shearonink (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I've looked through about half of the articles listed here and in my opinion none of the subjects so far have been notable. The one thing I can find in common is that all the interviews seem to be listed in the University of North Carolina's Digital Collections - there are over 1000 interviews listed in the Federal Writers Project collection, here. In looking at the articles, it seems that the writers might have had the assignment of verifying the FWP interviews as history with too much of every article text being concerned with assessing the FWP, instead of writing about the asserted subject. Shearonink (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps someone should just ask a few of them if they are part of a project, so we can contact the leader/teacher. I don't want to get AfD happy too quickly and discourage them. I would rather sit on marginal articles a few days than ruin the spirts of a bunch of potential quality editors. I'm a bit tied tonight, but if we can find the teacher, I can contact and discuss with them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll pick a few articles & their creators' names at random and post on the editors' talkpages, see what the response is. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I've also noticed that a common source (at least on 3 of the articles I've been able to check, is a 1977 article by Thomas Soapes, "The Federal Writers' Project Slave Interviews: Useful Data or Misleading Source." The Oral History Review 5 (1977): 33-38. JSTOR. Web. 13 Nov. 2012 JSTOR link here. Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I've left 'Welcome and a question' notes on four of the creating-editors: User talk:Kevinkelleher12, User talk:Codycj, User talk:Cmclean99, and User talk:Karebearayka. Shearonink (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the initiative here. I think that handling this calmly and slowly is definitely the best way. I don't think anyone is trying to do anything wrong here, they are just not familiar with our notability guidelines, and maybe the instructor isn't either. If it is a college project, I would probably get one of my professor friends in the loop, who could probably be more helpful. And of course, thank you Joanna for bringing it here, which was the best option. Hopefully we can find a way to actually help them a bit. If only one of them became regular contributors, it will have been more than worth all the effort. If not, it still was, for their benefit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you Shearonink. I didn't want to just start going through and deleting those because I did think that it was good faith effort, but the mass of added non-notable articles just struck me as odd. Thank you all for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember very clearly how confusing this place was when I first started so I try to give people a lot of AGF, but the sheer volume, the apparent mimicry of all these contributions to each other and the timeline is somewhat troubling to me....but just because I am troubled doesn't mean these editors are out to deep-six the encyclopedia, it just means I and maybe some others are...troubled and *that* means that we want to look into the circumstances a little bit more, because from all the articles I have read, none of the subjects are notable. If someone wanted to write an article about the veracity of the FWP interviews as a oral history project (and I've read them and used them in research before and can see how they could perhaps not be reliable) then that *might* be a reliably-sourced subject but for Willie and Mary Roberts et al?, I just don't see it. Maybe the content can be adjusted into a different form or moved into a different subject or something... Obviously, these people or this person, whoever and whatever they are, have gone to a lot of trouble to learn the WP:MOS, how to Wiki-code an article, how to "do things right", I don't want to throw the article-baby out with the Wikipedia-bathwater unless it is absolutely necessary. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that none of the four have replied to my posts on their talkpages yet. I am going to post some more 'Welcome and a question's on maybe three or four more of the apparent group's talkpages and see if we can get a response from anyone in that group before any severe action is taken. Shearonink (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have now posted the 'Welcome and a question' on four more User talkpages, User talk:JohnRobinson94, User talk:Paigemedlin, User talk:Rhoner, and User talk:Aecorrig. I will mark off the articles up above who have my query-posts on their creator's talkpages now. Shearonink (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This is all part of the philosophy we have at WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention, a project I started in July and that has grown to 100 members already. I appreciate the extra effort here, truly. These little things really make a difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the eight editors I contacted have replied yet, which is disappointing. Before any further possible action, I suppose the only thing to do is to manually go through and leave a 'welcome and a question' at every single one of this group of 43 - I'll try to get to that later today. One other thing about this mass addition seems odd to me...all the content was just plopped down into WP main with no other edits in the various editors' userspaces. I did see an instance of a single editor who used the WP:Sandbox once but that is the only one outside article-space so far. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
We just have to be patient, it has been only several hours. They may not log in again until class, or until working for that class. These aren't regular contributors, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Patience is appropriate. I do want to AGF and not scare them off. I just didn't want them to start going through and adding even more articles like that. The Articles for Creation process would have been more appropriate for this stuff. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I just noticed that one of the users has answered Shearonink's question. Also wanted to note that a few more articles were created and then some of them PRODed by NawlinWiki: John Belk: North Carolina Textile Worker, Beulah Parson Davis, Wilsie beale, William Edward Bardin, and Eliza Grant. (Also: Halver Halversen (North Carolina)) Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC) updated: JoannaSerah (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, I will ping Drmies and ask if he can assist here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Holy shit, that's a lot of articles. Good for the project, no? Drmies (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, after looking at a couple of them, maybe not so. I left a note as well: I don't really want to go emailing if we can discuss this on-wiki, but--and I'm afraid this is typical of such educational assignments--there seems to be no on-wiki oversight. I see no edits by others on talk pages or in articles that would connect us to an instructor, but I have not plowed through all of them. Let's wait a bit--though in the meantime it will be difficult to stop any editor from AfD'ing the articles since these subjects are simply not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I deprodded the ones mentioned above, saying "not saying is (or isn't) notable but we should take this more slowly". LadyofShalott 19:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Since these are likely students' final projects, is it possible that we can temporarily userfy any pages that are worthy of deletion, at least so the students can get a grade? I looked through a couple and I agree that they don't seem notable in general. Ryan Vesey 19:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there some other wiki project that would accept articles on topics like this? That would alleviate the grading problem. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, The NC WikiProject is first in mind since they are all NC people. However, I didn't want to just put them under that umbrella since I didn't feel most (if not all) had real notability. I agree with Ryan Vesey that perhaps they could be moved to their Userspace or to WP:AfC to allow them to really prove notability, etc. Not sure what other projects this would fall under. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean WikiProjects ;) but rather things like Wikiversity--some place where the actual text can go, not on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I knew you would have some idea on how to proceed, much better than I. I'm not smart enough. I went to the Davidson County Library today to get a library card so I can access NC libraries online, and they refused me the card. Sad, I know. And yes, I'm serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

From the response that was posted to my 'Welcome and a question' query at Talk:JohnRobinson94, yes, our theory that these were part of some educational assignment is correct, all these articles were part of a final project for an English class. Drmies, I agree that Wikiversity might be an appropriate home for all the individual texts, other than userfying the content I think it is the only possible home among the various Wikimedia projects (in my opinion none of the article's subjects are notable enough to survive any type of WP notability review). I am unsure, though, as to who to contact about these FWP articles at Wikiversity or even how to contact an administrator/coordinator at that project, am hoping that someone here (like an admin-type?) could initiate some sort of contact with the instructor before we move or userfy any of the articles. Also, if we are considering the idea that all this content should perhaps be moved to Wikiversity, then that would have to probably be approved by someone on that side of the fence....I don't want to be perceived as just shoving things over the transom and hope they land without breaking...
Would it be possible to put some sort of pre-emptive notice on all these articles now that they are all part of a class assignment, maybe something from Wikipedia:School and university projects? I'd like to keep the possible oncoming CSD/PRODs at bay until the instructor can be contacted. The work that these students did is actually quite good technically, some of these contributors would probably be an asset to WP, it's just a shame that the subjects they chose seem to be so non-notable. --Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think he was saying Lady (above) is the best authority on what to do, and she has already unproded some. I agree that we want to find a way to satisfy the needs of Wikipedia while being sensitive to the budding authors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not any special authority on this stuff. I like the idea of transwikiing(?) the articles to someplace like Wikiversity. (Maybe is there a North Carolina wiki [a separate wiki, not the NC WikiProject] that might want them?) Has anyone (Drmies?) actually made contact with the professor of the class. We don't want to step on each others' toes here. LadyofShalott 03:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, there is NCpedia.org. It is run by the State Library. It is not an open wiki (you have to contact their admins to suggest a topic, write an article or whatever), but the bar for notability is much more subjective and they don't always have the developed article guidelines (such as verifiability, etc.) that we have here. It could be something that they might be interested in. They could even do a whole project there about FWP. Just a thought. I've not ever written anything there, although I've thought about it. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • JohnRobinson94 just posted the instructor's WP nick on his talkpage, only edit was to the WP Sandbox but it's a start. I agree with Lady, I'm being hands-off with contact, any contact needs to be somehow coordinated so the message doesn't get muddled. Actually, I do not quite feel comfortable contacting the instructor myself - might be more appropriate for an admin to do it. These students put so much work into their articles I am hopeful that the content can be salvaged somewhere in the Wiki-verse. I don't even know if there are admins on Wikiversity or not or who to contact about this over there, but agree that Wikiversity is probably the most fitting home for this FWP/NC content. Shearonink (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Any movement on this? A few of the articles have been PRODed. I have added a welcome message to the professor's talk page, but probably needs someone (admin, ambassador, etc.) to coordinate this better than I would, I think. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think a few of the editors have been contacted but no replies. I think much of the effort was just to delay long enough for them to get their grade, but no one in that project has contacted anyone that I am aware of, and no one has been willing to email the professor. At this point, the normal editing process takes over, as we have done what we can, and more than many would have done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking it would be inappropriate for someone other than an administrator to email the professor, but am doing so now....just to give her a heads-up that all/much/most of the content is now starting to be dealt with for non-notability. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
NOTE:I just realized I can't do the email...my WP email account is messed-up at the moment...can someone else PLEASE send a note to the teacher about these articles being PROD'ed for non-notability? Right now I am manually going through the list of active Wikiversity Custodians to see which of them are also active on WP and then leaving a message + linkage on their WP talkpage/s to this discussion. (There's probably some easier way to do some kind of sorting on this stuff but I don't know how.) Shearonink (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
NOTE:I have left asking-for-help posts on the talkpages of 8 Wikiversity Custodians who have also been active on WP within the past few months...maybe one of them can tell us if Wikiversity can house these articles or not. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

After a quick look I would say that these sound like they are within the scope of Wikiversity, although they will likely require some modification to be made useful there. I'll bring this to the attention of the community in our discussion forum. We have similar learning resources that were done as classwork such as v:The_Crafting_Freedom_Project. As an admin at en-wv I can transwiki copy any pages in danger of being deleted. Please use {{Copy_to_Wikiversity}} to identify articles outside the scope of wp that are part of this project. I would suggest that you hold off on taking any action for about two weeks to given the instructor and students time to finish and evaluate the work for grades, so that this good faith effort is not unduly disrupted by a simple misunderstanding of wp guidelines. If the instructor's assignments are generally outside of the scope here, we would be happy to help set something up at wv to accommodate future class work. --mikeu talk 19:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I suggest others remove PROD tags, add this tag, and just point anyone with concerns to this discussion. Mu301, if you can contact the instructor, that would be swell. I am not familiar enough with protocol to do so and prefer someone more experienced handle this delicate situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It is likely that the instructor and students are very close to final exams right now so they are probably very busy and perhaps a bit stressed. So I'm not surprised or alarmed that we haven't had an immediate response. I would be happy to contact the instructor; has anyone identified the person who is running the class? It would be a shame if potential valuable contributions to WP:SUP or v:Wikiversity:School and university projects were discouraged by a hasty decision. IMHO, the long term benefits to WMF outweigh any harm that the presence of these articles might cause in the short term. (Unless, of course, if there are BLP or other similarly urgent issues.) After all, education outreach is a priority WMF initiative. --mikeu talk 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe the instructor was identified here [7] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll followup on this. FYI, I also cross posted to Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Chapel_Hill_and_Federal_Writers_Project. --mikeu talk 20:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't know I was in charge of anything here. ;) I see that there's a note on JohnRobinson's talk, don't know why I was thinking that someone from them would get in touch with us. I'll leave another note and will be back. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, see User talk:Cjr100B. I will send them an email as well though, I might add, as an admin I don't have any special discretion here; anyone can do it. But I'll be glad to. Now, let me vent for a moment: [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]. I feel much better now. Thanks to all here--let's wait for the instructor to show up here and we'll take if from there. I gather from Mu301's comments that Wikiversity is a good option; Mike, I hope you'll stick around to see what happens. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The primary reason I hoped you would be in the loop was due to your occupation and ability to empathize and understand the instructor's motivations and methods, as well as your tremendous experience here. Admin bit wasn't really a factor. Not being an academic, I fear I would have been stumbling in the dark, and deeply out of my element. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be okay on WV as far as scope goes, but I'd be slightly worried about BLP-type issues (there aren't any policies in place to deal with that, and there aren't all that many people patrolling).

In case of emergency (things get speedied, etc.) tell them to get in touch with me on my talk: I have buttons in both places, so I can still import even after deletion. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 11:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A solution

OK, I got a response from the instructor; see User talk:Cjr100B. Let me draw up what appears to be a consensus here (correct me if I'm wrong), before making a few notes to indicate why I think these articles don't meet our guidelines.

  • Consensus: they are not OK for Wikipedia but they are for Wikiversity; there are a few editors, above, who can assist with a move (SB_Johnny in particular).
  • My read on Eric Norfleet, picked somewhat randomly--representative but with a somewhat unusual name that would allow for easier searching. On second thoughts, no: this person was a judge and may thus have independent notability). Let's pick Bertha Steadman.
    • First things first: most of the article is not about her but about the general circumstances of the time and about the Writer's Project. The sources for those sections (that is, all but the lede and the biography section) do not appear to discuss Steadman herself; I don't have access to the Review of Radical Political Economics but I am confident from my searches that that 1976 article does not discuss Steadman. The same goes for the article cited from The Journal of Early Adolescence. Bringing that into an article is fine to establish context, but they do not add to the subject's notability.
    • Second, a search for Bertha Steadman and Walter Steadman in EBSCO delivers nothing; same in JSTOR and Academic Search Premier. (I'm not going to exhaustively search all databases I have access to.) A Google search of the web delivers 977 hits, none of them in reliable sources, most of them on genealogy sites (where one might expect every name in the world to turn up)--the one in the NYT is not our subject. It is doubtful that our subject passes our notability guidelines unless something pops up from some old book or some journal article.
    • In general: the subjects interviewed in the documents produced by the Writer's Project are not notable unless they are discussed outside the project as well--it stands to reason that many non-notable persons were interviewed, Mrs. Walter Steadman among them, but the very fact that they were interviewed is not grounds for notability.

So, I see no option to conclude that, barring individual and extraordinary circumstances that lead to notability, these subjects are not notable, at least not without additional evidence from other sources than the project, sources which specifically discuss the subject. Moving them to Wikiversity is the best option. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi - I want to thank you all for your patience and discussion with this as my students did work very hard on this project. While their sites may not have been sophisticated, they truly worked hard on this. I have done work on Wikiversity before, and I can understand why you all made this suggestion. I was, however, wondering about the possibility of merging some of these sites with the existing Federal Writer's Project wikipedia page. Obviously, wikipedia pages get searched much more easily than wikiversity pages, and I would like them to be as visible as possible as I do think that these are quite important life histories. Thank you. Cjr100B (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • With "these sites" you're referring to the Wikipedia articles, right? It's possible that some of the general information on the Project could be inserted into that article, but I don't know for sure. The individual names of those subjects are best not inserted there, but the Project's Wikipedia page could I suppose have a link to the Wikiversity page (there would need to be a general page or category, or something like that), and if the External links section is cleaned up a bit then such a link will be more visible. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I came across some of these articles today when patrolling the backlog of the newpages. I sent a few to AfD before getting suspicious about what was going on as they seemed to be coming from seperate accounts but with very similar content. As far as I can tell the majority (I haven't looked at them all) fail WP:N. What is the current standing on this? I would suggest we use the instructor's (User:Cjr100B)) userpage and move all the articles to subpages of that (i.e. User:Cjr100B/Martha Turner).
As an aside, I came across this discussion on Dennis's page purely by chance as I happened to be coming here to ask him about it myself. Small world. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I feel popular. As Drmies is the most familiar with the entire process, I suggest getting with him on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think any action has been taken, has it? Dennis, how about it? I don't know how stuff can get moved from one place to another, but it needs to be done, with or without the instructor's help. I gotta run and make dinner (mac and cheese tonight, Dennis...) but ahl be back. I wanna have this over and done with so you can have your talk page back. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that's sweet--the thread on the Education Noticeboard got archived without anyone having commented on it. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That is a common problem here. If I could do more, I would take the time and do so, but I never even went to college and so far out of my element that I know I need to not just grab the reigns and make it happen. You know me, I'm used to jumping in, playing cowboy and just fixing the problem myself, so having to stand back drives me crazy. I genuinely wish I could offer more help, but I'm admittedly clueless here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • No need to apologize for anything, Mr. Self-Made Man. All we need is someone who knows how to transfer stuff to Wikiversity... Drmies (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I would suggest that, until we can get things transferred to Wikiversity we at least remove the articles from the main article space. As I mentioned, I've already sent a couple to AfD before I decided to investigate what was going on. If we userfy them to the instructors userpage they'll be easier to find and move to Wikiversity when the time comes. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Time to deal with it, then--please help out, all of you. I've moved the first column to the user space of Cjr100B--you can do this too, and DON'T leave a redirect. I've deleted the misspelled initial article titles as well for that first column. I will leave a note for the instructor; this has taken up too much time. If you can, please tackle a couple of them and we can get this cleaned up very quickly. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One more thing: make sure, after you move them to user space, that you remove them from any categories they might have (most don't have any)--you can do this simply by adding a colon, like this, [[:Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian]]. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just found this discussion, after having nominated Della McCullers and Aunt Hassie Fletcher for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Della McCullers. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination if a better solution is found - were all these articles going to be moved? StAnselm (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I did a bit of work on User:Cjr100B/Henry Brandon (North Carolina) a few weeks ago - I added a notability tag, and then removed it when I realised the subject was a state senator. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, Anselm--withdraw it if you like. Considering the lack of interest shown by students and instructor I don't know if this is worthwhile in the first place. But go ahead if you like, sure. Yes, they were all going to be moved, but there's a half a dozen editors at least in this thread, and I don't want to do all of this moving by myself. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change it, I can change back if I disagree. I'm always open to new input, as long as people don't get upset in the event I disagree with parts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your comments on the proposed changes to WP:MMAEVENT on WT:MMA, there has been consiterable dialog, and the Proposed Changes are on "Version 4". Through the conversation most people have offered their support to the proposal, with 3 people opposed. Of the 3, 2 have now stated that they support the proposal, and i believe the current version addresses the concerns of the remaining opposition. I did ask them to take another look on their talk page, but have not yet heard back. i am wondering if you might lend guidance on what the next step should be? i have never been involved in a RfC, but it seems that some people feel that is the next step. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Kevlar (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is the same that I have faced in every MMA discussion. When I attempt to draft a solution, taking time to do it properly and open it to public debate, several people rush rush rush, then things get left out or are done wrong, then it gets aborted, then nothing happens, then the whole cycle starts again. The problem is the lack of patience by both sides of the debate. I really don't care how it comes out, I've tried to simply mediate, but it is not easy when no one has patience and wants an instant answer. This has gone on for years, we can't fix it in a week. Keep in mind, 5 or 8 people agreeing or disagreeing here isn't meaningful. I haven't looked to see if this addresses all the issues that the community has expressed. It is what the community outside of MMA thinks that matters in an RfC. If I sound discouraged, it is because I am. The community is as well, which is why they passed a motion giving admin extraordinary power to control the problems, as they are tired of the endless debate. As to what will come of this, we will see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
i 100% understand why someone would feel discouraged and or frustrated with the WP:MMA community. i really am trying to be an honest broker and listen to all sides. The 3 people who could not support at various times were Nintendude64, Mtking, and Uzma Gamal. Nintendude64 felt some of the wording in the guidelines was too strict/arbitrary, this was cleared up and s/he now supports. From what i gather Mtking, and Uzma Gamal both had concerns that the proposal was attempting to expand notability, instead of summarize existing policy/guidelines. Mtking and i have been working together to correct these issues and s/he now supports the current proposal, i can not speak for Uzma Gamal but did leave a message on their talk page asking them to take a second look. i have never been involved in an RfC, so not only do i not know how to begin one, i do not know when it is appropriate to do so. If i am correct and Uzma Gamal feels comfortable supporting the current version, it would be unanimous support. would that be the time to begin the RfC, or is there another process other than an RfC that i am unaware of that would be more appropriate? Kevlar (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this, very swamped in the real world. RfC is the exact right place. That way the whole community can take part, ping me if I miss it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Sockpuppet

I have some evidence of this. I don't like to get involved this deep but it is being used as a ploy against me. and I don't know where to present it. I see you seem to be involved in some of this. Help? Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you want to open a new sock puppet investigation, WP:SPI is the correct venue at which to do so. Go Phightins! 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have gone through the process. I hope I didn't screw up the form too much. When did editing get this complicated? :) 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • A few years back. Like most "good ideas", it developed so slowly, us old timers never noticed the chains being slowly shackled to our ankles. If it is malformed, a clerk will fix it. We don't mind. I'm tied up, so will leave it to another clerk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The accused sockmaster is attempting to build a side case against me by distorting sequence of events and assumptions of my intent. In view of indesputible evidence he seems to be admitting offences but attempting a distractive counterattack with guidance from another on his talk page and Thee-phase electric power article talk page. Do I attempt to defend myself against these raised issues and where would I place defence comments? Is my input and job done? Is it better to just let this ride? Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
SPI clerks are used to sorting evidence and ignoring falsehoods. Usually it is best to let the facts speak for themselves rather than get in a drawn out fight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
athnk you for all the help. This this has been devastating. I have never been involved in a mess like this before. One certainly learns to do WP research. What a place! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA/SPI threat from Mtking

Hey Dennis, not too sure if you remember but a few months ago I was accused of being a sockpuppet for a user called BigzMMA, and that after confining in you and another admin I was eventually unblocked as it was proven that we are not the same user.

The reason I am writing to you now is that I have recently received what seems like a threatening message from a Mtking, telling me that "If you are [BigsMMA] then I wish to to give you one more chance to come clean and throw yourself at the mercy of the admins." He then said that he intends to reopen the SPI case that previously blocked me without any warnings or notifications. I'm not too sure how to react to this, so I simply replied to him to say that through you and the other admin, User:Steven Zhang, that it was proven that we (me and Bigzmma) could not be the same person, and that I will ask for your advice on how to handle the situation if he does reopen the SPI. I also asked that if he does if I could get the link for the discussion, as last time I was not even informed prior to being blocked.

Now as well as your advice on how to deal with the SPI if it happens, I wanted to ask for your opinion on whether he has taken the right moves also. From the way he written the message (can be seen on this link), it almost comes off as a threat, at least it does to me. If you get a chance to read it, can you tell me whether I should report it as a personal attack or something, I do feel unnerved by this message, and after last time, fear what will happen from here on. Thank you for your time. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I should clear up a couple of things: Steven Zhang isn't an admin. He is an experienced editor who I asked to review the case after I had blocked you because I felt you were a sockpuppet of BigzMMA. He didn't prove you weren't him, he just determined that the evidence wasn't conclusive enough to indef block you. There is a big difference in the two. I disagreed strongly but didn't make a fuss over it. I respect him and the process here, so I complied. Since then, I have left you alone and assumed the best of faith, essentially "pretending" I didn't think you were a sock, as to give you a fair opportunity. I was hoping that you would have learned your lesson and would contribute constructively. I don't think it is helpful for Mtking to question you this way, I would say just file or don't. I expected it would be refiled eventually, once more behavioral evidence has been accumulated. Of course, if it gets refiled, I would reexamine all the new evidence and offer an opinion (which could change, who knows) but allow another admin to make the determination. This probably isn't the answer you were expecting, but it is an honest one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the honesty, but the reality is that I have always contributed constructively, it is just the fact that this BigsMMA has also edited on similar pages before is what is being questioned. Our editing styles are just too different for us to be one of a same. I will be filing a report over the way that Mtking wrote his message to me, as it does come over as a personal attack, and after last time it is, in my opinion, a very ballsy approach considering the original block was overturn for any reason. The SPI has begun, so if you would like to contribute, heres the link. Pound4Pound (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Randy's Donuts

I just saw a thing on the travel channel talking about how Randy's Donuts came from 1950's American Car Culture. In addition to the large donut to be seen from the road, it has a drive thru. Ryan Vesey 15:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

le sigh

Yo DB, could you take a look at User talk:‎TyroneBiggums23? It's another one of MikeFromCanmore's socks, who's posting unblock requests (theoretically since his TPA and email was removed from his main account). I don't actually know why his email access was removed; Alison took it away as part of the Flyer22 thing, but didn't restore it when Flyer22 was found to be unrelated. Has Mike actually abused the email feature, and if he hasn't, is it worth restoring email access so he can send in a ticket to UTRS? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The editor has emailed me from yet another account, one of the firefly accounts you blocked. The block log indicates that the reasons were unrelated to Flyer22. From a technical point of view, only a CU can review since it is an actual CU block, and you and I lack the authority to even consider the matter. The talk page access and email should be revoked to be consistent with the CU's actions previously, and the editor needs to request an unblock through emailing Alison or a functionary directly. The key here is that it is a CU block, only CUs (or Arbcom) can change those settings. We are likely lacking information as mere admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I thought that Alison's most recent modification of the block meant that she was lifting the checkuser status of the block, since her investigation had shown it to be unrelated to Flyer22. I guess I should let him know about the functionaries mailing list, then; the forms must be obeyed. Or, I guess it's BASC? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NPA?

I won't make my same edit again, but I'd like to turn it over to an uninvolved admin to watch. Harryzilber is understandably upset. When it comes to the issues of right and wrong, in a case where there probably is no right and wrong, people become emotionally involved. That's also why I'm stepping away from the talk page. My last edit was to remove what I perceived as a personal attack against me [10]. If you agree that it is a personal attack and it is restored, can you take care of it? I'll leave anything from now on. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It was rude and incivil, that is certain, and he shouldn't have said it, and I left him a note. You have to consider the source, a disgruntled editor who was blocked and appears to not understand the rules. He is in the wrong, no doubt, but he is just proving you are a better man. Don't let it bug you. Anyone that knows you would know it is just him attacking you. I would say reverting it is fine, but it doesn't deserve drama. Once an admin, this is the kind of stuff you will have to overlook most of the time, as we get a lot of it. I occasionally see an admin block after someone insults me, which always catches me off guard since I don't block for singular incidents like that. I know who I am, which makes it easy to ignore these trivial attacks by people acting childishly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup. See WP:NOTNAS. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to you poor, abused Admins, that one of the reasons you are in a position to overlook an insult, is because you have power to do something about it? (I.e., block the insulting user, or as per Toddst1's "course", lie in wait for them later, as up-in-comin's.) A cop once told me, after I reported a street harassment, that he is often harassed, for being a cop (and therefore, I should learn something from that, and ignore harassment, as he did). Yeah right. He wears a gun. He has discretionary power to make an arrest, for "disturbing the peace" or "public disturbance" (or in Wiki terms, "battleground mentality", "tendentious editing behavior", "disruption", or what other made up shit). Point is, your ability with your tools, the discretionary powers you have and can choose to use, or not, give a sense of comfort and power that someone lacking those tools, can't have. So let me get out my crying towel for the poor, abused Admins. (And BTW Mr. Todd, your earliest versions of your essay are a clear "us-versus-them"/Admins-versus-non-admin-editors mentality [until you watered it down some, changing first-chose words like "blocking" to less blunt phrase "taking action", etc.] and, you don't see the hypocrisy of that at all, and are apparently [even still] pround of it! It should be embarrassing to the entire Admin corps, but, they don't question their own, unless it's egregious, and in plain daylight.) Good day and Merry fucking Xmas. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
My point was that to be an effective admin, you have to be the type of person that can overlook the little things. I do the same thing in the real world. If someone gets rude, it is easy to ignore. This is due in part to self-confidence and my ego not needing the approval of strangers. It is common for young people to care more about that sort of thing, and getting better at dealing with irrelevant opinions as they mature. I wasn't personalizing it or looking for a pissing match, I was making a general point to an editor whom I expect to be an admin some day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For your work

I have given you all the barnstars [11]. Thanks for everything you've done to keep this place sane and all the help and advice you've given me. Ryan Vesey 21:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gail Riplinger

Dennis: Could you, or one of the other admins who read this page, take a look at this talk page? Basically, you've got an SPA with a major POV on the subject accusing people of being totalitarian and exhibiting serious IDHT behavior. Other editors seem to be fraying around the edges and the whole thing could use some calming down. (I'm involved to the very limited extent of suggesting that the SPA chill out and ratchet back the rhetoric. I haven't edited the article, although I did comment in the ongoing AfD.) The thread is here. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done

"gullible and foolhardy". pablo 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Egregious violations, I don't care to run to ANI, want to take a look?

Bearian just used rollback for an edit that clearly wasn't vandalism [12]. It appeared to be a mistake so I undid it. It apparently wasn't. Bearian then full protected the page to avoid an edit conflict. (I'm assuming he'll be removing the full protection soon). I don't think he's intentionally being abusive, but I believe he momentarily had a lapse of judgement. Want to take care of it? Should it be taken care of? Ryan Vesey 23:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'll be checking through all of his contribs soon. I doubt that he is competent for the sysop bit [13]. Is it appropriate to create a subpage to collect info? Ryan Vesey 00:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Now, now, I've dropped him a note, lets not get snippy. Let's see what he has to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER
I don't mean I intend to actually request removal. But I certainly think it's worth checking. I feel like he surprised me with something once before that he did, but I can't think of what it was. He seems like a nice guy, but that doesn't mean he should necessarily have extra tools. Ryan Vesey 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As he explained it, he did it for his own convenience, that is a violation of policy. I don't want to create a bunch of drama over it, but I do want him to understand this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This should be an interesting learning experiance all the way around, but I really am shocked he did that. Perhaps not warranting a de-syops, but may be worth a look to see whats up with his history.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This kind of use of the tools used to be more common, but it is no longer tolerated as we have matured and required admin to keep an airgap between their editor and admin actions. What bothers me most is that he didn't even visit the talk page and see what is going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we were able to work it out. As I said, Bearian seems like a nice guy and although he misused the tools, I don't think he abusively misused them. The actions just surprised me. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw the absence of intentional abuse right away (hence the majority of the decision not to go to ANI). I'm glad I didn't go, that would have been terrible. Ryan Vesey 00:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This is why are are kind when asking, firm but polite when making a statement, and quick to forgive. We have to make sure we don't accidentally cause more drama than the original issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm over it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Bend with the wind ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Conversely there really isn't that much difference between r/b and undo on a single edit, we can afford to be nice about people who do that. It's only when someone does amss rollback tha things go wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 04:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC).

A kitten for you!

Sorry for the drama.

Bearian (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hey Dennis, lately, I'm pretty bonked with real life and such. I'm going to reduce my editing until probably early January, if I feel up to it. I'll still be editing, just not as frequently as before. I'll try to catch up on the mentoring, however there is no guarantee. I hope you understand. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm on break in real life now, so I can start editing more frequently. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Summarily blocking all future sockpuppet (of a single user) talkpage access after block

This is an interesting question [14] about whether it is even possible to do so for any/and all future sockpuppets of a user. Not just per policy but as a matter of tech. Could you take a moment if this is still active when you get up and the answer has not been given?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It is closed. There is a problem with automatically revoking talk page access for all socks. If it is a CU confirmed sock and there is a history of problems, it is less problematic but pushing policy. If it is a duck block, you can't do that. The issue is that even when you are sure, you might be wrong, and all admin actions are subject to review, all editors have a right to appeal a block. Again, you can get by with CU confirmed since it is more or less "without a reasonable doubt" that they need to go back to their original account. One good example is User:Flyer22, who was blocked, some called for her talk page access to be blocked, etc. In the end, she was unblocked, showing that there was more to the case than met the eye, and even CU evidence wasn't enough to make a perfect link. I had given her WP:IPBE previously, which really pissed off some people, although it would appear I was right all along. Cases can be much more complicated than meets the eye. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very good points. As I noted there before the matter was closed (with which I have no problem at all, since I was really just talking about administrative convenience), I was thinking to simply leave a note on the sockmaster's talk page to say that CU-confirmed socks should lose talkpage access immediately. (Alison's been running checks on pretty much every sock that comes up, as CheckUsers tend to do in long-term abuse cases like this.) But I suppose you're right that the risk of denying easy recourse to anyone erroneously blocked isn't worth the minor annoyance of Mangoeater harassing other editors from his blocked socks' talk pages. And MikeFromCanmore's dirty proxy trick showed us that a dedicated troll can indeed spoof CheckUser under the right circumstances. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A crying shame

I know you will agree with me. See User talk:SchuminWeb for details. No-one should be made to feel like that by other people here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • A lot of people do not realize how stressful being an admin is around here. Of course, as soon as I say this, it is usually followed by scores of people telling me how hard it is to be abuse by admin and all that, I'm used to that, but they forget I spent 6 years here as a non-admin, so I know the score on both sides. Non-admin can walk away, start over or leave a little easier. I know, I did it for two years. People become admin for different reasons, and becoming one changes you, makes you feel a genuine responsibility to be here, and constant pressure to do things for others. Of course, most of them enjoy helping others, but it takes a toll that is hard to articulate. Since becoming an admin, the amount of "bullshit" I have to deal with went up over 10x, and I had spent a great deal of time in contentious areas before, including 1600 AFDs and plenty of ANI time. It is different with the bit, you are always under a microscope. I expect the same thing will happen to me someday, we all burn out eventually, and the candle burns hotter with the bit. I love what I do here, but it is much more stressful. There are days when I've would like to shut this account down and start editing at an anonymous editor again, so I can do so in peace. Fortunately, I don't feel like this very often. This is one of those things that we can't really fix at WP:WER except to try to chip away at the problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I find I can be more use without the mop and bucket. I was never any good at housework. A few times I've been approached with a view to being nominated, refusing each time. Then I found the userbox to say I had no interest in becoming adminified. I find the bird's nest of red tape editors have designed around themselves to be a huge burden, and I can not administer what I find hard to agree with :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_16&oldid=1144419287"