![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
I can't find it now, but a while back there was a discussion on Jimbo's Talk page about how feeble our SPI tools are. In particular what came to mind is that we only have access to their IP and it is easy to fool us on that basis. Meanwhile, the technology exists to track users based on their device ID and network ID as well, which is not personally identifiable but could be much more effective. It would take considerably more resources and know-how to use Wikipedia from a different network and device, as oppose to from a different IP. However, I don't know anything about how SPI works. Is this possible? Is there a reason it hasn't been done already? CorporateM ( Talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Tired, and tired of the Mikemikev socks, I've semi'd this for 3 months (which of course will attract accounts from him. If you think I need to do something else - range block, page for IP editng, etc., let me know. I doubt we can do a range block. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
ScottXW and his "deletion heros". Thank you.
Yunshui
雲
水
08:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Egy writer ( talk · contribs) continues to add copyvio. I also note there was a mass deletion of his images on Commons. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller ( talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hm. You don't like pictures? Pictures is a way of expressing something. It is not written, but it is a way of expressing feelings. I am a big big beliver that a picture say more than thousand words. It is just a convention not to use pictures. And it doesn't hurt anyone. ( Except the person's feelings who posted it and get it removed) Hafspajen ( talk) 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I corrected the user name in the SPI-case from ScottXW to ScotXW (with a single 't'), so that all links would appear, but apparently additional steps are required to make it appear correctly in the list of SPI cases, so could you please take a look at it? After clicking 'save' I also realised that I probably shouldn't have made any changes there, since I'm not an admin, so I'm sorry if I meddled with things that I shouldn't meddle with... Thomas.W talk 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank for your comment on the Afd of Denise Donnelly. I've got a few questions. 2014–15 Middlesbrough F.C. season can classified as stub or start? What you think about this article? Subject seems pretty notable to me, but not too sure. OccultZone ( Talk) 11:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, ask the experts ( RexxS) why bolding by ";" is not a good idea, - it's meant for list formatting, not for headers, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
TOClimit|n}}
. Sometimes, of course this can't work - for example when References is split into Notes and Sources (or whatever) and you don't want those sub-headers showing but you already have level three headings in your TOC. In those cases, the kindest thing to do is to bold Notes and Sources to make them look like headings for the sighted, without introducing incomplete definition lists for anyone using a screen reader. It's not a perfect solution, but it's probably the least bad one. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
20:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that given your controversial close of a Ukrainian/Russian matter some weeks ago, which we discussed, and given that Rgloucester quite strongly defended it and you, it might well have been left for some other admin to close the matter of his personal attack. Just my 2 kopeks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Dennis, thank you for your military service to our country. Happy Memorial Day! (And thanks for nominating me at RfA) God bless, Go Phightins ! 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm wondering if this is true, because here it claims a rare dealer-installed option came with 500 horsepower (without even including a reliable, recognizable source). 99.17.207.105 ( talk) 03:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm dealing with some health issues and I have no idea how frequently I will log on for the next week or two. I may have to use my alt. accts. when I do log in. Anything urgent should go elsewhere for now. Thanks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear user, I want to inform you that I posted a RfC/U to obtain formal mediation in the respect of the issue I have communicating with user:Director. You tried in the past to mediate and I need confirmation of your effort in the RfC [ [3]] to validate the actual RfC/U. -- Silvio1973 ( talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi you don't need to respond to this, I just wanted to inform you that it seems like User:Oglesruins, the person you blocked, has gotten another account. Very similar edits are done with this account that are done with Oglesruins. It has also been warned on the talk page for similar issues as Oglesruins. GoPurple 'n Gold24 00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Any guesses on whether Hartsols is another sock? He sounds like him, but I don't have access to checkuser. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 04:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd guess Starebube is another sock. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
O.k. - I'll try to figure out how to go about doing that. Get better! Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
When you get a chance, if you would review a few of my first few admin actions, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks, and all the best. Go Phightins ! 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I went through all the admin actions you have done to date, and here are the unfiltered observations: A few of the AFDs that had one keep, I dug around to see if I could find sources (ie: should you have closed or fixed and voted) but didn't find much. I do wonder a bit about
Carolina Rosario since I found
this so quickly, and I wonder if it is just because Google filters for English language for us yanks. The rationale for protecting
Polygraph was unusual but appropriate enough. Revdel of Queensland seemed proper, etc.
You might have been a bit quick on the trigger and long on duration for User:T4is is not my nam3. Really, he only had one stupid edit, the other was to his user page. Also, you also didn't template him, something I suggest in all cases for obvious or confirmed socks, just to give them the links to get unblocked. I think a strong warning (preferably hand written but level 3 template will do in a pinch), would have been better than an indef block, then monitor. If it was particularly malicious and obvious vandalism, that is one thing, but this looks like a kid who is just clueless. Some of those become admin eventually ;)
As for User:A guy saved by Jesus, I might have reverted it, but I probably would not have revdel'ed it. Others may disagree on that one. It was a personal attack on the editor (which we almost never revdel), but just because someone mentions a religious icon doesn't mean we revdel. RevDel has pretty strict guidelines, more strict than for blocking in many ways, actually. (Since you RevDel'ed and I'm not reverting, feel free to email me if you want to discuss the content more openly)
On Jay Carney, protection seemed hasty. Even if unhelpful, edits weren't vandalism, one might even be accurate, and only two IP edits in the last 5 days. That is pretty far under the threshold for protection, to be honest. The WP:5P makes a big deal out "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which is why we prefer to block users instead of protect if we have the option.
BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, block templates are under TW, Warn, then the bottom of the types. It took me a month to figure that out, I was hand typing them.
Those are my observations. Only the one block is really worrisome, as those aren't as easy to undo as a protection. Of course, you can ask others to look at those cases I mentioned and offer an opinion here if you choose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Dennis, I saw that you blocked Grfr12345, after looking at the SPI, presumably. What are your thoughts on the whole situation? I find it a bit weird, and I almost regretted citing Grfr12345 in the block rationale after I did it; I started to wonder about a joe job. Something's not really adding up here; the other account and evidence that Tiptoety brought up makes me wonder if the two accounts (Grfr12345 and Fremantle99) are friends/siblings; perhaps the latter created the account and used it to frame the former. It just seems weird to me that someone would use a sock to transclude their own RfA and then use the sock to vote in it as if it were a different person, all without any edits from their main account and having just had their request for rollback declined. It's so obviously a sock move, if nothing else. Am I overthinking it, or does it seem weird to you, too? Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, if you don't mind me jumping in on this conversation, Dennis did you block ZTE? Thanks! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, hope all is well. I have a question about SPIs, not an area I am overly familiar with, although I have filed a few. On Constellation Brands there is a recurring edit, adding the same content, the page was previously protected per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcoa1000/Archive, since then the same edits are popping up by various users:
I am sure that all of these could probably be blocked per WP:DUCK, however should the SPI be extended and CU requested? Just not my strong area, and I am not up on the protocol figured I would ask someone who knows the area a little better than I.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oglesruins -- Moxy ( talk) 00:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I am just gonna pass this ball to you. I have no vested interest in the article but I thought that merits attention. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.141.170 ( talk) 01:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group? Or only those who are members of the BAG group and those who are admins. OccultZone ( Talk) 08:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thanks for TCOB at ANI. BTW, that's nice, the Gretsch stuff. Keep on rocking in the free world. Drmies ( talk) 02:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC) |
Hi! I am pretty sure I know who the editor is, although my though is that it isn't Morning277. Both Smallbones and I came to the same conclusion independently, and I've spent most of the day tracking down related accounts to see if I can work out the overall picture. It is all pretty ugly, though - at least I'm down to the last few leads on the main account. - Bilby ( talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis! Glad to see you've "unretired." I see you are an edit filter manager. I am wondering what the process is for proposing a new edit filter? High up on my list of my least favorite phrases is "24/7, 365". There is a particular editor that continuously adds that phrase while adding content about fire departments (most of which is highly undue, but that's a separate point). He never responds to talk messages so trying to discourage it through discourse is unlikely. Cannot see a situation where that particular phrase would add any helpful content. On the other hand, there are some songs and albums that contain that phrase. I am completely ignorant of how filters work, but it seems like there should be a way to allow the phrase as title or section header and allow it if it exists as a title or a section header. Not on regularly any more so please give me a talkback when you reply. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
...shit! I've participated in 3569 AfDs! No wonder I'm such an asshole. Or, really, the other way around: since I'm an asshole, I must have sought out the worst possible environment. There's a lot of green in the matrix, so I'm not all bad. Drmies ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Denis, I have worked on the page and removed the excessive repetitions of the Akan groups, but the Ghana and USA match is coming up, during the last world cup the Ghanaian team scored against the USA and if I remember there was some vandalism so please keep an eye on the page as a precaution, if its possible to limit edits on it for a few days, I think it will be helpful thanks Thesunshinesate ( talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Response to msg left on my talk page...."Please hold off edits to the article and go to the talk page first. I'm getting calls for protection but you are the only one editing. I would prefer if you went to the talk page and addressed some concerns there, and developed consensus first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)"
Please feel free to delete the whole exchange, including my comments. I should have known better than to feed the troll. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, a year ago you were kind enough to help me at George Marsh (martyr) in a little war of reverts that ended in sockpuppetry. The editor has returned and I have reverted his addition. Can ping I you if he reverts me because I'm not in the mood for an edit war. J3Mrs ( talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I should have thanked you here not elsewhere for your time and patience, my only excuse is the funeral wouldn't wait for me. Thanks again. J3Mrs ( talk) 09:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
In the Dave Brat article I asked a good faith question to you to get your input on a discussion taking place on the Brat talk page. Your response was an attempt to intimidate me into silence and to threaten me into submissiveness. I did not know that is the way that admins are suppose to act when editing Wikipedia. You can review your snarky, inappropriate response that falsely accuses me of "disrupting" wikipedia here: false claim by an admin of me "disrupting" wikipedia when I was simply asking an admin for his opinion. Is this an issue that I take up with you or with a certain Notice Board? Do you think Jimbo would look at my simple question as "disrupting Wikipedia" like you do? What do you think? It is a talk page. I try to talk to you. If you did not want to answer you could have simply said that. Why did not have to lie and say that I was "disrupting Wikipedia"? That has to be one of most immature, responses that I have ever gotten from an admin. It was truly unprofessional. So, please help me out, who do I talk to about this? Are you the only source?-- NK ( talk) 20:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The OP has started a thread at User talk: Jimbo Wales. (By the way, the original exchange did look to me like a hostile question. Maybe the OP is unaware of when a question looks hostile on the Internet.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
See [5] last section. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to reply. I have placed old afd notices on the talk pages of Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956) and CyberBerkut, for which you, today, closed the deletion discussions. No action is required. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dennis, Could I please draw your attention to unregistered user IP 86.156.53.27. He/she has made the same seven unreferenced/POV edits to Gatwick Airport today and has totally ignored requests from myself and admin. MilborneOne to stop. As you will know, I have no intention of edit warring, but do feel that these actions should be stopped. I have also pinged MilborneOne, but guess he has retired for the night. With best regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
dear Sir,
You have deleted that article. How can I find the information mentioned in it? Կարեն Վարդանյան ( talk) 21:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This 68.81.21.243 is reeking havoc an several pages. I see you have blocked him previously. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 22:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see the expired semi-protection at Dorje Shugden page, and the current vandalism. Also another IP, 46.44.222.109 restoring the exact edits of the last IP. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 06:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it, he is deleting academic material, and rephrasing text at Dorje Shugden. Bushranger called it vandalism, so I also called it vandalism. Get off my case, respectfully. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
DB, do you want to see the Shugden situation here?. It seems every Admin is on vacation. Heicth ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to see whats going on at Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso? VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown: in April 2011 you contributed to this deletion discussion of Mario Ferri, a Canadian activist/organizer/politician; the article's deletion request was vetted by User:Xymmax, who wrote after some discourse:
Mr Ferri was actually notable for several reasons prior to his entry into the political arena, and handily qualifies under WP:GNG guidelines as a community activist/organizer going back to the 1980s. I visited some stacks and clipping archives and copied some 80 articles to properly rewrite his story, which now resides in my sandbox over here. Mr. Ferri was the subject of several articles written on him, including the Government of Ontario’s Corps D’Elite Award he received, presented to only a few people annually, with awardees often being cited in the unicameral Ontario legislature's proceedings. This was noted prominently in a half page article on him, "Mario Ferri Receives Corps D’Elite", and in a few other articles as well. Ferri was the object of print media and TV news long before his Wikipedia article was created, and about 30-35 articles feature prominent photos of him at various projects he initiated or at the protest demonstrations he organized, including in front of the home of the Premier of Ontario (an elected position equivalent to governor).
I posted this request to Xymmax to undelete/unlock Mario Ferri's article space, but unfortunately Xymmax has not been active on Wikipedia since mid-February. I would appreciate if you can assist by assessing Mr. Ferri's notability under GNG, and unlock his article space if you agree, so the rewritten article can be posted there. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the article's fawning tone. Most of the adjectives are now gone and some material on the waste facility has been removed and will be transferred to the Keele Valley Landfill article instead. I'd missed the basics of reporting just the facts, facts and facts, and have now taken Saint-Exupery's advice more to heart ("a work is complete not when there isn't anything left to add, but when there isn't anything left to remove"). A second reading would be appreciated. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Come on Farmer Brown, your ruining all my fun and taking Wikipedia too seriously. Its just a website and not a very good one. People treat it like a joke and treat editors abusively so I'm just doing what has been shown to me repeatedly as acceptable behavior on this site. Just write it off as Bold or IAR. If the arbs and admins on this site have no respect for the rules, then there is no reason for me too either. I tried in every way to extend the olive branch and put this little conflict behind us but no one wants too and just wants to spit in my face. So I will continue to just play around and have fun. Cheers and happy editing. K NYBradley ( talk) 00:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello. I noticed an unconstructive edit by MosesM1017 on your user page, so I reverted it. I then took a look at his talk page and contributions, and noticed both the final warning you had given him and that all of the three edits he had made today after being given the warning were vandalism, introducing deliberate factual errors, resulting in him being reported by me at WP:AIV for vandalism after being given a final warning. So either his case waits in line there for whatever time it takes, or you decide his fate... Thomas.W talk 18:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
NorthAmerica 1000 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. You recently wrote "We need more active admin .... but up to date admin". Has anyone asked XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk · contribs) if they're interested in running for the mop? I've seen lots of content work, (15,000 edits, 66% in article space) plenty of activity in GA and FA reviews, often in high visibility articles, and they always seems to offer good advice and a cool head. Their user page says they want to be an admin, so perhaps somebody could enquire about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
However, User:Ritchie333 himself has a clean block log, as well as lots of other desirable admin qualities... I seem to recall a conversation some time back where I suggested I'd support you running for RFA, Ritchie, what say you? Still up for it? Yunshui 雲 水 12:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem I've got with putting myself forward for the mop is that I very occasionally (and it really is only about once every six months on average) get cross with someone and have a pop at them. I think on every occasion it's been somebody else saying or implying something in the US is better than that in the UK (example here) which seems to press my bezerk button (even though my partner is from the US). I've always thought that would kill an RfA stone dead if the target turns up to !vote "oppose". You can dig out other examples in my contributions. Don't know if that'll be an issue. Anyway, Snuggums, I personally think you've got the right attitude and demeanour and even your block actually strengthens your cause to me. Something to think about, anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let me conclude by proposing this to Dennis and @ Yunshui:. Would you both be prepared to consider filing an RfA for myself (and Snuggums, if they want it) sixths months from now (January 2015) provided you can find no evidence whatsoever of angry mastadons or toy throwing in that time period, regardless of what conflicts or disagreements come up? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I was amazed to see a new user joined today with 7 edits starting his life on Wikipedia from AfD! See his contribs; all his edits are at AfD. This makes me concerned that he might be (I'm not sure) a sock of somewhat experienced blocked user (I don't know who). It is very odd (for me) to see a very new user starts from AfD. So, I wanted you to keep an eye on his contribs. Thanks, Jim Carter ( talk) 12:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis. I am new here, so i was not sure if you could see my answer on my user talk page, so I will put it here in whole too. My appologies, if this is redundant message.
"I reverted you on the rather large deletion. In the spirit of WP:BRD, please go to the talk page of that article and discuss why you want to delete such a large section that is referenced. I'm open minded and will listen, but any time we remove 20 percent of the whole article, it is pretty common for other editors to want to at least discuss it first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hello Dennis. We have discussed this with the user who wrote that part in Finnish version on the article. In there we come to a conclusion that it should be removed, as it does have personal views about it. Fact of the matter is, that those proposed improvements on the flathead are based on technology that is still on develobment phase, or have not been proven in any way. And it has been discussed in other forum, that is more engine oriented, and determined that it would not make flathead any more potential option in todays world, because engine has fault in its basic design, that could not be overcomed. User who wrote the finnish article and part that has been removed, is the same person who editet part "potentials" to this flathead article. That is why i did not see why it should be discussed again. Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)" Heikki Vainionpää ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought that there would be no need to discuss a matter that is clearly not done in accordance to wikipedia rules. But now i have started a discussion about removal of the articles partition. Thank you from your advise. Heikki Vainionpää ( talk) 14:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Heya, thanks for helping to close AfDs... it can get wretchedly backlogged. :( Anyway, as a quick heads up, be sure to subst: the {{
afd top}}
and {{
afd bottom}}
templates, else the bots won't pick up on the fact that the discussion's actually been closed. Personally, I just use
User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, because it takes at least 95% of the hassle out of the whole closing process (it even updates talk pages on keeps/merges + deals with relists gracefully). Anyway, thanks again, and cheers =) --
slakr\
talk /
02:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you're famous — you have your very own Wikipediocracy thread, with controversy and spilled bile and everything. LINK. Hope you are doing well. I love ya, man, keep up the good work! All the best, —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
A beer for you. And some extra beer.
Hafspajen (
talk)
17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)![]() |
Dennis, do contributions of banned users have to be removed even if they improve an article (e.g., [9]). Seems stupid, but I can't find anything either way in my skimming of the banning policy. Go Phightins ! 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Brown, I assure you I take this seriously. I will endeavor to provide diffs as soon as possible. Meanwhile, if you have a moment to look at my talk page history, it is all right there. I'll return tonight for the diffs. -- Paisan1 ( talk) 20:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. Just to let you know that I asked for such a list as discussed. -- Leyo 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I've replied on the ANI thread. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of Limiting case (philosophy of science) having three paragraphs now? Now other user is questioning the whole idea because he/she imagines that it is a "rare and strange" term. Thanks! -- Damián A. Fernández Beanato ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
As the title implies, you have new e-mail from me. Please respond by e-mail, as I'm not going to disable Javascript a second time. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 01:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
As you participated in the AFD, you might be interested in the DRV. Giant Snowman 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Law of One (Ra material). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, a few days ago I raised concerns on ANI regarding repeat vandalism on page YesAllWomen, and you were helpful with board suggestion of WP:RFPP. We are continuing to have problem on talk:YesAllWomen, but now of a different nature. Is there a board that would be appropriate to gain feedback when an involved editor closes RfC without prior discussion or consensus to close it?
Additionally, is there dispute resolution available when dispute includes more than two editors? The editor who closed RfC is fresh off block for edit warring in another article, and their recent participation has been described by myself and at least one other editor as non-collaborative. Things have gotten kind of crazy on page, and if things continue along these lines, it seems we are going to need an RfC, just to open an RfC.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
received a ping, and just saw the above thread. Dennis I think it's not quite fair to say I closed an RFC - what I did instead was put it on hold temporarily -- I didn't close it in terms of concluding where the consensus lay. Instead, since Tara rejected the RFC question, and felt it was a non-neutral header, Bobo felt the RFC header was insufficient, I felt both her and Tara's additions to be non-neutral, (Bobo's statement, for example, characterized myself and Tutelary as "holdouts", suggested we were unwilling to compromise, and provided no explanation for the positions we held (while providing explanation for HER positions), thus poisoning the mind of the reader.) and Tutelary rejected the additions of Bobo and Tara and finally withdrew the whole RFC. Basically both sides were unsatisfied with the framing of the question, and I felt putting it in abeyance temporarily while we sorted out the framework of the RFC itself would be more beneficial than continuing to argue about the RFC while the RFC was open. I now see that my bold move was too aggressive and it was resisted, so after reflection I undid that change, abandoned my effort to draft a new neutral RFC header (since no-one had shown interest in helping with that) and simply added my own opening statement to match those of Bobo and Tara. I don't think mediation is necessary at this point, as the RFC is now open again, the original statements desired by Bobo and Tara are in place, and I don't plan on closing or opening new RFCs on that page anytime soon, nor arguing further about the language used by Bobo and Tara in their statements. I probably should have started with that option (e.g. adding my own neutral opening statement), vs. the approach I took, and I regret that I caused such drama and apologize for it.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Obi, I really did mean to just walk away and let everyone figure it out on their own. I got the impression you were only going to correct some grammar, clarity, etc. Questions or not, they already know your opinion. I haven't gotten to all the details of this discussion, instead just looking at the gist but I'm really not up for another large case right now, I just don't have it in me. If it gets dragged to ANI, dominating the discussion is going to look bad to the mob that hangs there. You've been here long enough to know that, which is why I've tried to just stop it here so it can move forward without more drama and the threat of sanctions. I would suggest you simply unwatch the page until the RFC is over, as the amount of participation is likely to be seen as "excessive" by outsiders. The choice is yours, I'm not giving order, just advice. Anyway, we have reached the end of what I can accomplish here, and this week is full of medical stuff so I'm really not up for mediating the RFC. Anything else needs to go to ANI tomorrow if it is required, although I hope it isn't. I know this is long (sorry) but let me end with an expression that has often saved me from myself over the years: "I would rather be happy than be right". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, could you please move MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom in order to match the main article's expansion of the acronym?
(I was having technical difficulties moving it..) -- Prcc27 ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
I can't find it now, but a while back there was a discussion on Jimbo's Talk page about how feeble our SPI tools are. In particular what came to mind is that we only have access to their IP and it is easy to fool us on that basis. Meanwhile, the technology exists to track users based on their device ID and network ID as well, which is not personally identifiable but could be much more effective. It would take considerably more resources and know-how to use Wikipedia from a different network and device, as oppose to from a different IP. However, I don't know anything about how SPI works. Is this possible? Is there a reason it hasn't been done already? CorporateM ( Talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Tired, and tired of the Mikemikev socks, I've semi'd this for 3 months (which of course will attract accounts from him. If you think I need to do something else - range block, page for IP editng, etc., let me know. I doubt we can do a range block. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
ScottXW and his "deletion heros". Thank you.
Yunshui
雲
水
08:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Egy writer ( talk · contribs) continues to add copyvio. I also note there was a mass deletion of his images on Commons. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller ( talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hm. You don't like pictures? Pictures is a way of expressing something. It is not written, but it is a way of expressing feelings. I am a big big beliver that a picture say more than thousand words. It is just a convention not to use pictures. And it doesn't hurt anyone. ( Except the person's feelings who posted it and get it removed) Hafspajen ( talk) 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I corrected the user name in the SPI-case from ScottXW to ScotXW (with a single 't'), so that all links would appear, but apparently additional steps are required to make it appear correctly in the list of SPI cases, so could you please take a look at it? After clicking 'save' I also realised that I probably shouldn't have made any changes there, since I'm not an admin, so I'm sorry if I meddled with things that I shouldn't meddle with... Thomas.W talk 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank for your comment on the Afd of Denise Donnelly. I've got a few questions. 2014–15 Middlesbrough F.C. season can classified as stub or start? What you think about this article? Subject seems pretty notable to me, but not too sure. OccultZone ( Talk) 11:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, ask the experts ( RexxS) why bolding by ";" is not a good idea, - it's meant for list formatting, not for headers, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
TOClimit|n}}
. Sometimes, of course this can't work - for example when References is split into Notes and Sources (or whatever) and you don't want those sub-headers showing but you already have level three headings in your TOC. In those cases, the kindest thing to do is to bold Notes and Sources to make them look like headings for the sighted, without introducing incomplete definition lists for anyone using a screen reader. It's not a perfect solution, but it's probably the least bad one. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
20:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that given your controversial close of a Ukrainian/Russian matter some weeks ago, which we discussed, and given that Rgloucester quite strongly defended it and you, it might well have been left for some other admin to close the matter of his personal attack. Just my 2 kopeks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Dennis, thank you for your military service to our country. Happy Memorial Day! (And thanks for nominating me at RfA) God bless, Go Phightins ! 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm wondering if this is true, because here it claims a rare dealer-installed option came with 500 horsepower (without even including a reliable, recognizable source). 99.17.207.105 ( talk) 03:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm dealing with some health issues and I have no idea how frequently I will log on for the next week or two. I may have to use my alt. accts. when I do log in. Anything urgent should go elsewhere for now. Thanks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear user, I want to inform you that I posted a RfC/U to obtain formal mediation in the respect of the issue I have communicating with user:Director. You tried in the past to mediate and I need confirmation of your effort in the RfC [ [3]] to validate the actual RfC/U. -- Silvio1973 ( talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi you don't need to respond to this, I just wanted to inform you that it seems like User:Oglesruins, the person you blocked, has gotten another account. Very similar edits are done with this account that are done with Oglesruins. It has also been warned on the talk page for similar issues as Oglesruins. GoPurple 'n Gold24 00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Any guesses on whether Hartsols is another sock? He sounds like him, but I don't have access to checkuser. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 04:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd guess Starebube is another sock. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
O.k. - I'll try to figure out how to go about doing that. Get better! Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
When you get a chance, if you would review a few of my first few admin actions, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks, and all the best. Go Phightins ! 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I went through all the admin actions you have done to date, and here are the unfiltered observations: A few of the AFDs that had one keep, I dug around to see if I could find sources (ie: should you have closed or fixed and voted) but didn't find much. I do wonder a bit about
Carolina Rosario since I found
this so quickly, and I wonder if it is just because Google filters for English language for us yanks. The rationale for protecting
Polygraph was unusual but appropriate enough. Revdel of Queensland seemed proper, etc.
You might have been a bit quick on the trigger and long on duration for User:T4is is not my nam3. Really, he only had one stupid edit, the other was to his user page. Also, you also didn't template him, something I suggest in all cases for obvious or confirmed socks, just to give them the links to get unblocked. I think a strong warning (preferably hand written but level 3 template will do in a pinch), would have been better than an indef block, then monitor. If it was particularly malicious and obvious vandalism, that is one thing, but this looks like a kid who is just clueless. Some of those become admin eventually ;)
As for User:A guy saved by Jesus, I might have reverted it, but I probably would not have revdel'ed it. Others may disagree on that one. It was a personal attack on the editor (which we almost never revdel), but just because someone mentions a religious icon doesn't mean we revdel. RevDel has pretty strict guidelines, more strict than for blocking in many ways, actually. (Since you RevDel'ed and I'm not reverting, feel free to email me if you want to discuss the content more openly)
On Jay Carney, protection seemed hasty. Even if unhelpful, edits weren't vandalism, one might even be accurate, and only two IP edits in the last 5 days. That is pretty far under the threshold for protection, to be honest. The WP:5P makes a big deal out "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which is why we prefer to block users instead of protect if we have the option.
BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, block templates are under TW, Warn, then the bottom of the types. It took me a month to figure that out, I was hand typing them.
Those are my observations. Only the one block is really worrisome, as those aren't as easy to undo as a protection. Of course, you can ask others to look at those cases I mentioned and offer an opinion here if you choose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Dennis, I saw that you blocked Grfr12345, after looking at the SPI, presumably. What are your thoughts on the whole situation? I find it a bit weird, and I almost regretted citing Grfr12345 in the block rationale after I did it; I started to wonder about a joe job. Something's not really adding up here; the other account and evidence that Tiptoety brought up makes me wonder if the two accounts (Grfr12345 and Fremantle99) are friends/siblings; perhaps the latter created the account and used it to frame the former. It just seems weird to me that someone would use a sock to transclude their own RfA and then use the sock to vote in it as if it were a different person, all without any edits from their main account and having just had their request for rollback declined. It's so obviously a sock move, if nothing else. Am I overthinking it, or does it seem weird to you, too? Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, if you don't mind me jumping in on this conversation, Dennis did you block ZTE? Thanks! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, hope all is well. I have a question about SPIs, not an area I am overly familiar with, although I have filed a few. On Constellation Brands there is a recurring edit, adding the same content, the page was previously protected per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcoa1000/Archive, since then the same edits are popping up by various users:
I am sure that all of these could probably be blocked per WP:DUCK, however should the SPI be extended and CU requested? Just not my strong area, and I am not up on the protocol figured I would ask someone who knows the area a little better than I.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oglesruins -- Moxy ( talk) 00:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I am just gonna pass this ball to you. I have no vested interest in the article but I thought that merits attention. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.141.170 ( talk) 01:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group? Or only those who are members of the BAG group and those who are admins. OccultZone ( Talk) 08:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thanks for TCOB at ANI. BTW, that's nice, the Gretsch stuff. Keep on rocking in the free world. Drmies ( talk) 02:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC) |
Hi! I am pretty sure I know who the editor is, although my though is that it isn't Morning277. Both Smallbones and I came to the same conclusion independently, and I've spent most of the day tracking down related accounts to see if I can work out the overall picture. It is all pretty ugly, though - at least I'm down to the last few leads on the main account. - Bilby ( talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis! Glad to see you've "unretired." I see you are an edit filter manager. I am wondering what the process is for proposing a new edit filter? High up on my list of my least favorite phrases is "24/7, 365". There is a particular editor that continuously adds that phrase while adding content about fire departments (most of which is highly undue, but that's a separate point). He never responds to talk messages so trying to discourage it through discourse is unlikely. Cannot see a situation where that particular phrase would add any helpful content. On the other hand, there are some songs and albums that contain that phrase. I am completely ignorant of how filters work, but it seems like there should be a way to allow the phrase as title or section header and allow it if it exists as a title or a section header. Not on regularly any more so please give me a talkback when you reply. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
...shit! I've participated in 3569 AfDs! No wonder I'm such an asshole. Or, really, the other way around: since I'm an asshole, I must have sought out the worst possible environment. There's a lot of green in the matrix, so I'm not all bad. Drmies ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Denis, I have worked on the page and removed the excessive repetitions of the Akan groups, but the Ghana and USA match is coming up, during the last world cup the Ghanaian team scored against the USA and if I remember there was some vandalism so please keep an eye on the page as a precaution, if its possible to limit edits on it for a few days, I think it will be helpful thanks Thesunshinesate ( talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Response to msg left on my talk page...."Please hold off edits to the article and go to the talk page first. I'm getting calls for protection but you are the only one editing. I would prefer if you went to the talk page and addressed some concerns there, and developed consensus first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)"
Please feel free to delete the whole exchange, including my comments. I should have known better than to feed the troll. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, a year ago you were kind enough to help me at George Marsh (martyr) in a little war of reverts that ended in sockpuppetry. The editor has returned and I have reverted his addition. Can ping I you if he reverts me because I'm not in the mood for an edit war. J3Mrs ( talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I should have thanked you here not elsewhere for your time and patience, my only excuse is the funeral wouldn't wait for me. Thanks again. J3Mrs ( talk) 09:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
In the Dave Brat article I asked a good faith question to you to get your input on a discussion taking place on the Brat talk page. Your response was an attempt to intimidate me into silence and to threaten me into submissiveness. I did not know that is the way that admins are suppose to act when editing Wikipedia. You can review your snarky, inappropriate response that falsely accuses me of "disrupting" wikipedia here: false claim by an admin of me "disrupting" wikipedia when I was simply asking an admin for his opinion. Is this an issue that I take up with you or with a certain Notice Board? Do you think Jimbo would look at my simple question as "disrupting Wikipedia" like you do? What do you think? It is a talk page. I try to talk to you. If you did not want to answer you could have simply said that. Why did not have to lie and say that I was "disrupting Wikipedia"? That has to be one of most immature, responses that I have ever gotten from an admin. It was truly unprofessional. So, please help me out, who do I talk to about this? Are you the only source?-- NK ( talk) 20:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The OP has started a thread at User talk: Jimbo Wales. (By the way, the original exchange did look to me like a hostile question. Maybe the OP is unaware of when a question looks hostile on the Internet.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
See [5] last section. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to reply. I have placed old afd notices on the talk pages of Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956) and CyberBerkut, for which you, today, closed the deletion discussions. No action is required. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dennis, Could I please draw your attention to unregistered user IP 86.156.53.27. He/she has made the same seven unreferenced/POV edits to Gatwick Airport today and has totally ignored requests from myself and admin. MilborneOne to stop. As you will know, I have no intention of edit warring, but do feel that these actions should be stopped. I have also pinged MilborneOne, but guess he has retired for the night. With best regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
dear Sir,
You have deleted that article. How can I find the information mentioned in it? Կարեն Վարդանյան ( talk) 21:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This 68.81.21.243 is reeking havoc an several pages. I see you have blocked him previously. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 22:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see the expired semi-protection at Dorje Shugden page, and the current vandalism. Also another IP, 46.44.222.109 restoring the exact edits of the last IP. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 06:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it, he is deleting academic material, and rephrasing text at Dorje Shugden. Bushranger called it vandalism, so I also called it vandalism. Get off my case, respectfully. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
DB, do you want to see the Shugden situation here?. It seems every Admin is on vacation. Heicth ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to see whats going on at Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso? VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown: in April 2011 you contributed to this deletion discussion of Mario Ferri, a Canadian activist/organizer/politician; the article's deletion request was vetted by User:Xymmax, who wrote after some discourse:
Mr Ferri was actually notable for several reasons prior to his entry into the political arena, and handily qualifies under WP:GNG guidelines as a community activist/organizer going back to the 1980s. I visited some stacks and clipping archives and copied some 80 articles to properly rewrite his story, which now resides in my sandbox over here. Mr. Ferri was the subject of several articles written on him, including the Government of Ontario’s Corps D’Elite Award he received, presented to only a few people annually, with awardees often being cited in the unicameral Ontario legislature's proceedings. This was noted prominently in a half page article on him, "Mario Ferri Receives Corps D’Elite", and in a few other articles as well. Ferri was the object of print media and TV news long before his Wikipedia article was created, and about 30-35 articles feature prominent photos of him at various projects he initiated or at the protest demonstrations he organized, including in front of the home of the Premier of Ontario (an elected position equivalent to governor).
I posted this request to Xymmax to undelete/unlock Mario Ferri's article space, but unfortunately Xymmax has not been active on Wikipedia since mid-February. I would appreciate if you can assist by assessing Mr. Ferri's notability under GNG, and unlock his article space if you agree, so the rewritten article can be posted there. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the article's fawning tone. Most of the adjectives are now gone and some material on the waste facility has been removed and will be transferred to the Keele Valley Landfill article instead. I'd missed the basics of reporting just the facts, facts and facts, and have now taken Saint-Exupery's advice more to heart ("a work is complete not when there isn't anything left to add, but when there isn't anything left to remove"). A second reading would be appreciated. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Come on Farmer Brown, your ruining all my fun and taking Wikipedia too seriously. Its just a website and not a very good one. People treat it like a joke and treat editors abusively so I'm just doing what has been shown to me repeatedly as acceptable behavior on this site. Just write it off as Bold or IAR. If the arbs and admins on this site have no respect for the rules, then there is no reason for me too either. I tried in every way to extend the olive branch and put this little conflict behind us but no one wants too and just wants to spit in my face. So I will continue to just play around and have fun. Cheers and happy editing. K NYBradley ( talk) 00:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello. I noticed an unconstructive edit by MosesM1017 on your user page, so I reverted it. I then took a look at his talk page and contributions, and noticed both the final warning you had given him and that all of the three edits he had made today after being given the warning were vandalism, introducing deliberate factual errors, resulting in him being reported by me at WP:AIV for vandalism after being given a final warning. So either his case waits in line there for whatever time it takes, or you decide his fate... Thomas.W talk 18:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
NorthAmerica 1000 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. You recently wrote "We need more active admin .... but up to date admin". Has anyone asked XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk · contribs) if they're interested in running for the mop? I've seen lots of content work, (15,000 edits, 66% in article space) plenty of activity in GA and FA reviews, often in high visibility articles, and they always seems to offer good advice and a cool head. Their user page says they want to be an admin, so perhaps somebody could enquire about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
However, User:Ritchie333 himself has a clean block log, as well as lots of other desirable admin qualities... I seem to recall a conversation some time back where I suggested I'd support you running for RFA, Ritchie, what say you? Still up for it? Yunshui 雲 水 12:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem I've got with putting myself forward for the mop is that I very occasionally (and it really is only about once every six months on average) get cross with someone and have a pop at them. I think on every occasion it's been somebody else saying or implying something in the US is better than that in the UK (example here) which seems to press my bezerk button (even though my partner is from the US). I've always thought that would kill an RfA stone dead if the target turns up to !vote "oppose". You can dig out other examples in my contributions. Don't know if that'll be an issue. Anyway, Snuggums, I personally think you've got the right attitude and demeanour and even your block actually strengthens your cause to me. Something to think about, anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let me conclude by proposing this to Dennis and @ Yunshui:. Would you both be prepared to consider filing an RfA for myself (and Snuggums, if they want it) sixths months from now (January 2015) provided you can find no evidence whatsoever of angry mastadons or toy throwing in that time period, regardless of what conflicts or disagreements come up? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I was amazed to see a new user joined today with 7 edits starting his life on Wikipedia from AfD! See his contribs; all his edits are at AfD. This makes me concerned that he might be (I'm not sure) a sock of somewhat experienced blocked user (I don't know who). It is very odd (for me) to see a very new user starts from AfD. So, I wanted you to keep an eye on his contribs. Thanks, Jim Carter ( talk) 12:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis. I am new here, so i was not sure if you could see my answer on my user talk page, so I will put it here in whole too. My appologies, if this is redundant message.
"I reverted you on the rather large deletion. In the spirit of WP:BRD, please go to the talk page of that article and discuss why you want to delete such a large section that is referenced. I'm open minded and will listen, but any time we remove 20 percent of the whole article, it is pretty common for other editors to want to at least discuss it first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hello Dennis. We have discussed this with the user who wrote that part in Finnish version on the article. In there we come to a conclusion that it should be removed, as it does have personal views about it. Fact of the matter is, that those proposed improvements on the flathead are based on technology that is still on develobment phase, or have not been proven in any way. And it has been discussed in other forum, that is more engine oriented, and determined that it would not make flathead any more potential option in todays world, because engine has fault in its basic design, that could not be overcomed. User who wrote the finnish article and part that has been removed, is the same person who editet part "potentials" to this flathead article. That is why i did not see why it should be discussed again. Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)" Heikki Vainionpää ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought that there would be no need to discuss a matter that is clearly not done in accordance to wikipedia rules. But now i have started a discussion about removal of the articles partition. Thank you from your advise. Heikki Vainionpää ( talk) 14:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Heya, thanks for helping to close AfDs... it can get wretchedly backlogged. :( Anyway, as a quick heads up, be sure to subst: the {{
afd top}}
and {{
afd bottom}}
templates, else the bots won't pick up on the fact that the discussion's actually been closed. Personally, I just use
User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, because it takes at least 95% of the hassle out of the whole closing process (it even updates talk pages on keeps/merges + deals with relists gracefully). Anyway, thanks again, and cheers =) --
slakr\
talk /
02:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you're famous — you have your very own Wikipediocracy thread, with controversy and spilled bile and everything. LINK. Hope you are doing well. I love ya, man, keep up the good work! All the best, —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
A beer for you. And some extra beer.
Hafspajen (
talk)
17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)![]() |
Dennis, do contributions of banned users have to be removed even if they improve an article (e.g., [9]). Seems stupid, but I can't find anything either way in my skimming of the banning policy. Go Phightins ! 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Brown, I assure you I take this seriously. I will endeavor to provide diffs as soon as possible. Meanwhile, if you have a moment to look at my talk page history, it is all right there. I'll return tonight for the diffs. -- Paisan1 ( talk) 20:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. Just to let you know that I asked for such a list as discussed. -- Leyo 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I've replied on the ANI thread. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of Limiting case (philosophy of science) having three paragraphs now? Now other user is questioning the whole idea because he/she imagines that it is a "rare and strange" term. Thanks! -- Damián A. Fernández Beanato ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
As the title implies, you have new e-mail from me. Please respond by e-mail, as I'm not going to disable Javascript a second time. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 01:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
As you participated in the AFD, you might be interested in the DRV. Giant Snowman 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Law of One (Ra material). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, a few days ago I raised concerns on ANI regarding repeat vandalism on page YesAllWomen, and you were helpful with board suggestion of WP:RFPP. We are continuing to have problem on talk:YesAllWomen, but now of a different nature. Is there a board that would be appropriate to gain feedback when an involved editor closes RfC without prior discussion or consensus to close it?
Additionally, is there dispute resolution available when dispute includes more than two editors? The editor who closed RfC is fresh off block for edit warring in another article, and their recent participation has been described by myself and at least one other editor as non-collaborative. Things have gotten kind of crazy on page, and if things continue along these lines, it seems we are going to need an RfC, just to open an RfC.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
received a ping, and just saw the above thread. Dennis I think it's not quite fair to say I closed an RFC - what I did instead was put it on hold temporarily -- I didn't close it in terms of concluding where the consensus lay. Instead, since Tara rejected the RFC question, and felt it was a non-neutral header, Bobo felt the RFC header was insufficient, I felt both her and Tara's additions to be non-neutral, (Bobo's statement, for example, characterized myself and Tutelary as "holdouts", suggested we were unwilling to compromise, and provided no explanation for the positions we held (while providing explanation for HER positions), thus poisoning the mind of the reader.) and Tutelary rejected the additions of Bobo and Tara and finally withdrew the whole RFC. Basically both sides were unsatisfied with the framing of the question, and I felt putting it in abeyance temporarily while we sorted out the framework of the RFC itself would be more beneficial than continuing to argue about the RFC while the RFC was open. I now see that my bold move was too aggressive and it was resisted, so after reflection I undid that change, abandoned my effort to draft a new neutral RFC header (since no-one had shown interest in helping with that) and simply added my own opening statement to match those of Bobo and Tara. I don't think mediation is necessary at this point, as the RFC is now open again, the original statements desired by Bobo and Tara are in place, and I don't plan on closing or opening new RFCs on that page anytime soon, nor arguing further about the language used by Bobo and Tara in their statements. I probably should have started with that option (e.g. adding my own neutral opening statement), vs. the approach I took, and I regret that I caused such drama and apologize for it.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Obi, I really did mean to just walk away and let everyone figure it out on their own. I got the impression you were only going to correct some grammar, clarity, etc. Questions or not, they already know your opinion. I haven't gotten to all the details of this discussion, instead just looking at the gist but I'm really not up for another large case right now, I just don't have it in me. If it gets dragged to ANI, dominating the discussion is going to look bad to the mob that hangs there. You've been here long enough to know that, which is why I've tried to just stop it here so it can move forward without more drama and the threat of sanctions. I would suggest you simply unwatch the page until the RFC is over, as the amount of participation is likely to be seen as "excessive" by outsiders. The choice is yours, I'm not giving order, just advice. Anyway, we have reached the end of what I can accomplish here, and this week is full of medical stuff so I'm really not up for mediating the RFC. Anything else needs to go to ANI tomorrow if it is required, although I hope it isn't. I know this is long (sorry) but let me end with an expression that has often saved me from myself over the years: "I would rather be happy than be right". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, could you please move MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom in order to match the main article's expansion of the acronym?
(I was having technical difficulties moving it..) -- Prcc27 ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)