Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:09, 21 April 2013

Speedy deletion of a company page

Hello,

Our company's page, Passat Ltd., has been deleted and we would like to revert this decision, if possible.

I believe that our company is notable. For instance, the laser that we made has been sent to Mars and used to discover water there (Phoenix Martian Mission: http://en.wikipedia.org/Phoenix_(spacecraft)#Robotic_arm_and_camera). We will also participate in OSIRIS mission: http://en.wikipedia.org/OSIRIS-REx. We are a small company and there might not be enough references about us online but we could provide some offline references as well.

Please let us know what is required in order to get our page reinstated?

Thank you, Vladimir Yavelsky 116D Viceroy Rd. Unit 1-4 Concord, Ontario L4K 2M4, Canada tel: 905-695-1088 fax: 888-635-0657 email: vlad@passatltd.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passatltd (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Couple of problems here. First, the article was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Passat Ltd. because it was created by a serial problem child, User:CastleKing1440, who has created tons of accounts for the purpose of evading the policies here. Next, your user name is a violation of policy. We do NOT allow companies to have accounts, only individuals, and it looks like your username is being used as a company account. One person per account, no sharing (see WP:User name). This is the only way we can hold persons accountable for their actions. The person who wrote the previous article owns the copyright, and we don't generally publish articles by persons who have been blocked or banned from editing (allowing them to only encourages them to continue violation our WP:sockpuppet policy), so I can't restore the article in any shape or form. What I suggest is that you first abandon that account, get an individual account that will be limited to one person's use (others can create their own accounts, that is fine) and begin the article at WP:AFC. The fact that you are a small company with few sources is going to make it difficult to pass the criteria, however. Please note, only sources that quality as reliable sources (per WP:Reliable sources should be used. Once the article is up to criteria, someone will happily move it to main space. Without boring you with details, there are very good reasons we have these steps, as we are flooded with lots of problem articles and problem users, so we ask everyone to comply with the same rules. As for calling or emailing, I prefer to handle this issue here at Misplaced Pages, as it is a purely Misplaced Pages issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm going to provide different advice. I suggest you just leave it alone and let it remain deleted. If you paid an editor to write the article, ask for a refund. As a PR person, it bothers me when editors string someone like you along by implying that there is any way to create an article about an organization that does not meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. If you follow Brown's advice above by creating a new account and going through AfC, you will invest many hours just to be rejected over and over, because Misplaced Pages just doesn't want an article on this topic, which is not famous enough. Just leave it - it's a waste of everybody's time and providing advice to someone to keep trying when it's doomed to fail is just bad advice.

Hopefully I'm not being a jerk Brown, but just saying ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, I see some wisdom. I have a habit of offering hope, and sometimes there is no hope. This may likely be one of those cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Dennis. Not sure if we've formally met, but I certainly know your name around town. Nice to finally have this opportunity. I've been looking at your User:Dennis Brown/RfA page and would like to submit my name forward as someone who would like you to review. I have read through you recommendations of criteria an editor should meet prior to requesting and I do fall short of your 200 edits per month in 12 of the 18 previous months. That said, I am hopeful that you still consider my request. I am available for any preliminary questions you would like to ask me before making a decision. If you are busy or would like to decline, I fully understand. Thanks for your time, Mkdw 06:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Right now, I'm kind of pulling back from admin reviews as my time is short (even today, Saturday, I'm working all day) and they require a great deal of time to do properly. I don't want to do a half way job, so I would have to decline right now. Sorry.

• No problem Dennis. Thanks for considering it. Mkdw 04:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Khwarazmian dynasty

I saw what happened in the Khwarazmian dynasty article, but may i ask when it's going to be unprotected again so other people can edit it?--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I should have just semi-protected it for registered users only. I've changed it to that now, for a month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

More to Revdel

The silk road has many embedded links to the URL in its history. A lot, even spaced so as to not catch the filter. As this one shows. Including other fake and false ones as seen here. It probably isn't recommended, but is it possible to REVDEL them all or the entire thing? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• RevDel isn't a tool I use often enough to be expert at, so I am not sure what the right answer is here. Might need an Oversighter or admin who does a lot of RevDel so we don't break anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

IRC?

Are you able to go on IRC for a few minutes for some questions unrelated to Misplaced Pages? Ryan Vesey 19:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks man. That dude is persistent! Drmies (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, friend. And thanks for the sparkly, I've not been around to earn many of these lately. Stored safely in the Ronco Barnstar Vault. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• You're a good man, Dennis Brown. I hope you have a great week. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For keeping the talk page at Talk:2013 Boston Marathon bombings sensible, and answering questions there of the new users. Thankyou! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It is always nice to hear from someone I remember from way in the day and looked up to. I'm quite flattered by your kindness here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Came here to pass along similar congratulations, but Chase me... has already said it better. Thanks, Dennis. --j⚛e decker 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. I'm out for the evening. I had to cancel my plans to be here tonight, but figured I might actually be of use on that talk page tonight. Good luck, and thank you for helping there as well, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, or thirded or something. Anyway, nice work keeping everything on track under some pretty awful circumstances. Stalwart111 04:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As is usual, the wikipedia talk page is a wonderful source for an ever-changing snapshot of an on-going event. Your monitoring of the many conversations and editors is a credit to the Administrative Corps. Preventing threads from drifting off into the cornfields is not an easy task. Your (as well as other editors) leadership is commendable. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A note about Talk:2013 Boston Marathon bombings

It is now early morning US time and the comment rate seems to be slowing somewhat. I've tried to keep up with the pace by archiving manually through the evening/night (the advantage of being on Australian time). I've tried to keep the page to around 50 threads, max. This has meant archiving a couple of threads that were mostly (but perhaps not entirely) resolved. But the alternate was to accumulate threads (there are 76 between the talk page and Archive 1 and counting) which would have been impossible to navigate, especially for mobile users. I've also closed/archived some threads to which I contributed - your stalkers should feel free to trout away if they are concerned but I saw no other option. Anyway, thought I'd note all that here for transparency/clarity and for the sake of some admin oversight. Stalwart111 07:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Its a tough thing. I think if it is really still unresolved, we err to keep and understand it might not be readable with a smart phone for a day. Someone was kind enough to setup a bot with a 24 hours archive, which will help. Considering the event, I'm shocked we haven't had more problems there. I've only had to block one IP who was impersonating a registered user, and spewing hate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, fair enough. I tried hard not to archive anything that anyone had contributed to within the previous couple of hours at least. Hopefully the bot can cope with the pace from now on. And yeah, I was surprised by the relative lack of vandalism/disruption - I thought there would be more. Anyway, thanks for you help and advice. Stalwart111 11:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hope I didn't come across grumpy there, I hadn't had any coffee yet, came here first, so wasn't meaning to come across as critical. It is just damn tough to find a balance there. Even if we leave discussions, half the people don't bother to read stuff (as the recent posts prove) and they just jump in and drop off their message without thinking that someone else has already discussed the exact same thing. Human nature I expect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, not at all. And given what has happened, I wouldn't expect my US colleagues to be all sunshine and rainbows anyway. Will be tough to find a balance even in 6 months, I imagine. Anyway, enjoy that coffee and keep up the good work! Stalwart111 12:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• After 9/11 (and the Oklahoma City Bombing, etc.) I think most of my fellow Americans are better equipped to put this in perspective. Even the stock market futures are up right now. It sucks, but I don't think it will cause much modification in our behavior, collectively. We've always known that stuff like this is going to happen. While it is a terrible event, I'm gratified that it wasn't worse than it was. Oddly, the fact that this happened during the marathon insured there would be lots of first responders on the scene, which may have made a difference in the death toll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure that's true - the whole area was full of high-vis and uniforms. Some media reports talked about surgery/triage at the scene. I'm sure it saved lives. Stalwart111 13:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure on-the scene meds did their best but they were only prepared for spains/exhaustion/running related etc. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering the number of limbs that were separated, I would imagine that just the act of stopping people from bleeding out was enough to save several lives. It wasn't the gear that made the difference as much as having so many people with solid, basic skills there. They set up a triage in the tents there, prioritized, etc. It would have been very different if not for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input

Hi Dennis. I've been working on an essay How WP:COI would read if I wrote it. It's intended to stay in user-space permanently, being that we have way too many forks already and I've lost any hope at improving WP:COI, but I figured I needed something more useful to link people to than anything that exists. If you have time, I would love any input you may have. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've got to go pick up a dump truck load of riprap for landscaping, but will try to look at it later today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It could be worse

For all the problems that occur here, at least we're not the Chechen Misplaced Pages, where every administrator and bureaucrat just had their tools removed. Ryan Vesey 14:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Blimey. Talk about en masse. Basket _Feudalist 15:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow. That is a very small wiki, and I imagine the smaller the wiki, the larger the chances are that this can happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and it took at least a month before the stewards finally did something about it. There were admins deleting their own rights removal requests and blocking the filers with no talk page access. --Rschen7754 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there can be one thing in mind for some of those Wikipedias, especially those that have problematic issues: corruption. Not to mention that on an irrelevant note, I have some very bad news: Dreadstar, a good editor and administrator, has retired over a certain recent issue involving Will Beback's appeal at BASC and it appears that he was driven off of Misplaced Pages by an abusive editor who has been involved in the WBB appeal. Very sad news for the project... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

• I will observe, but I think it is going pretty well without me and not sure I can add any more to the discussion. This appears to be a good example of how to have a discussion, actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I really hate to ask, but can you please take a look at Talk:Abuse#Problems as well? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for keeping an eye on the Boston Marathon bombings article. It's getting a ton of hits, and I'm glad that diligent editors are there to answer questions and maintain quality. – Quadell 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kindness, I do appreciate each and every barnstar I receive, and appreciate the thought that goes into them. I store the originals in my Barnstar Vault for safe keeping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Dennis. I know you said you were busy with work so I hope this doesn't find you at a bad time. :) I wanted to notify you that I continued the discussion on an AN/I that you were involved in. Thanks for your assistance! Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I'm just as confused now as before, but hopefully things will just work out, or can be settled at WP:DRN, if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Marathon bombings

If I'm slow to answer here, it is because I'm trying to patrol the talk page on this article (not editing the actual article, so I can clerk the talk page a bit). If anyone calm, cool and collected would like to help, it would be appreciated. Lots of new users all excited about adding material, and much of that isn't within policy, so it take some patience to explain this to them. If you can calmly do this, please consider helping out there. Thanks in advance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is hopeless at handling that sort of situation, and anyone who tries to intervene ends up being threatened with a 3RR report. You just have to wait until the whole thing fizzles out and then fix what you can. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right if you are talking about making it a good article. As I've explained to others on that talk page, I will not be enforcing 3RR myself as long as the edits are in good faith and not sequential warring. I think the other admin there understand that as well. Really, all I can do is help new, excited users understand why some edits aren't proper, and help settle some disputes. This is why I don't mind staying off the actual article page. We do have a chance to gain new editors who were brought here solely because of this story, or we could lose editors if they are pounded unfairly and blocked for trying to do the right thing by removing questionable material. To me, this is the core of what adminship is supposed to be, just mopping up, help educate people, and blocking the occasional warrior. I've only had to block one person so far, so I'm pretty happy that it has gone fairly smooth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	If we had a Tireless Contributor Teamwork barnstar, I would award that to you, but I am not that technically inclined, so you'll have to settle for one that doesn't spin. In any case, you have been terrific on Talk:Boston Marathon bombings and I don't know what the rest of us monitoring would do without you. Thank you very much. Go Phightins! 02:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you GP, I appreciate the kind words. I appreciate your work there as well. Having calm and sane people just participating and explaining "why" in valid and concise ways really makes it much easier to keep the page flowing constructively, and you're always a great contributor in that. As I explained above, these articles bring us lots of new editors, and how we treat them can make a big difference, particularly when they want to put things in that don't fit with policy. Thanks again :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's true regarding new contributors. I hadn't really thought about that, but you would be correct, good sir. Go Phightins! 02:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-protect Boston Marathon bombings?

Hey, Dennis, if you're around, can you look into re-protecting this page for a while? We're getting an IP-hopper inserting utterly unsourced claims about North Korea being behind it (yet disguised with a citation to an article that doesn't even mention North Korea), as well as some other things. Drmies and I both feel too involved at this point (we've been editing the article in an editorial capacity over an issue about one of the victims' name), so if you're still uninvolved yourself, take a look. If not, though, or if you're not around, no biggie: I'll just make a request at RFPP. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can't. The problem is that User:Zzuuzz unprotected it at WP:RFPP. He didn't attempt to discuss with me or any of the other admin who were involved in protecting it the first time, and no one notified any of us of the RFPP discussion. I'm not particularly thrilled with that fact alone. If I go back and re-reprotect, it will look like wheel warring. I agree that it should be protected, and I provided links with previous cases, etc. when I explained it on the talk page. You need to ask Zzuuzz, who has said he will be baby sitting the article today when he unprotected it , although I haven't seen any edits by him on the talk page. Or take it to WP:AN. History has been that they will likely support a longer amount of semi-protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies made a post on ANI asking for general assistance, so I think that will suffice. That wheel-warring thing's a bear, ain't it? :/ Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) I've just given it a 12-hour semi, without knowing there was any possible dispute over protection - so I don't think that can be regarded as wheel-warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (I'll go leave a message for Zzuuzz too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC))

• (edit conflict)I don't mind someone reversing me, but this wasn't done properly. He should have at least notified me with a reason afterwards. This isn't 2005 anymore, we usually demand a greater degree of admin cooperation than we did back then. Same with SilkTork moving the page, which I might agree with his logic, but not the way he unilaterally did it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Boing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've started a proposal for two weeks of semi there, that should fix any reversions if it reaches consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ridiculous. There has been very little vandalism since the page was unprotected. Now, as soon as one vandal does pop up, you want to protect the page for two weeks. You're admins, for goodness' sake. Spend half an hour blocking the ip 'till he goes away and keep the article open for all to edit. That's what you're supposed to do. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't be mad at us, be mad at the IPs that are going in and screwing it up for the rest of the IPs. I don't want to see it protected any longer than it needs to be, and I'm actively on the talk page (along with other experienced editors) to help sort edit requests, so it isn't like we are wanting to protect it and waltz away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I support having a self-block, please guide me through the process

Hello, I support having a self-block after engaging in counter-productive and hostile behaviour in the past few weeks. I am not in good shape to be editing here due to addictive complications of my behaviour here. Please guide me through the process.--R-41 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• email me and explain. I will hold the contents of our emails in the highest confidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What is your e-mail?--R-41 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker): Typically admins won't block people upon request (a rare few do, most don't). You can, however, "block" yourself with the WikiBreak Enforcer. Just set it for a certain time in the future (a day, a week, a month, your choice) and you will be on an enforced wikibreak (or a self-block). You won't be able to sign back in until the wikibreak is over, so don't make it for a long period of time or forever. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • • (talk page stalker)For Dennis's email, look in the "toolbox" section of this page for the link that says "Email this user". Click that, and you'll get a form that will automatically be sent to his email when you submit it. LadyofShalott 04:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • R-41 doesn't have email enabled, he'll have to do that if he wants to send Dennis the email that way, but I think a script enforced wikibreak is the best option. R-41, if you don't feel comfortable with the instructions, you can tell an admin how long you want the wikibreak to be for and they can add the code to your .js page for you. Ryan Vesey 04:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is the link to email me from here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion

Regarding the Boston Marathon bombings article, is there a good reason not to include a particularly graphic image. One in particular has been cited numerous times in wp:rs as "iconic", and other sources mention the Associated Press in critical commentary for their editorial decision to publish the image. My76Strat (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I probably need more info, you didn't link a discussion or image, but will do the best to answer. As far as the image being graphic, that isn't a particular problem if the image is clearly within the scope of the article and conveys information that words can't (ie: it isn't gratuitous in nature). That can be a gray area, so more than one opinion is needed, depending on the content. If it isn't a Free image, then I would say not to include since there are plenty of Free images available. If it is a free-license photo and you think there might be controversy, then a discussion on the talk page is best. The problem now is too many images, so it is better to get consensus before adding yet more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for sharing that insight. I tend to agree with your counsel in whole. There's no discussion because I wanted your opinion first. Most sources cropped the image in this fashion The un-cropped version is rather dramatic Because it is mentioned, and described in numerous sources, I think a valid fair use rationale is possible. I am considering starting a discussion but am still meditating on the pros and cons myself. Thanks for your help. My76Strat (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the end result of that discussion on Fair Use would be, but if the actual photo itself has gotten a lot of mention, and not just use, then I agree it may be worth discussing with the community and that you would at least have a rational basis for inclusion. The image is rather graphic, but I don't think it is gratuitously so, and arguably provides information that prose can't. I'm not sure which side of the argument I would fall on, and would have to think carefully on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a little list ...

Did I really oppose you at RfA? You're obviously much more forgiving than I am. I have a list of all those who opposed me, and I never miss an opportunity to get my own back on every single one of the bastards. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If I didn't read certain talk pages once in a while, I'd never know anything. You ran for admin twice. At least you've curbed your masochistic tendencies in the last five years. I got a kick out of reading your pithy responses to some of the opposes in your second RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was naive enough in those days to believe that RfA was an offer to help. It was only later I came to understand that it was really just a ritualised hazing, the equivalent of standing in the stocks for a week having everyone chuck rotting fruit at you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You certainly did oppose, friend :-) . It was an ugly RfA, but not by your doing. A large part of the reason that I went out of my way to complete this task in a way that obviously in good faith was because of your !vote: "It's ridiculous to promote someone on the basis of an unenforceable promise to stay away from one area or another for some vague period of time." In your case, the vote was serious, non-personal, and a valid concern. I took the CSD mentoring serious, not to prove you wrong, but to prove to the community that I took their concerns seriously. You just got to set the bar.

Being a good admin is a goal, not a given, and soon as you stop trying to be one, you aren't. That is why I think demeanor is more important than GAs for admin. Of course, you have to have respect and understanding for the prolific content creator, but I don't think it requires that you are one. This is why I swallowed my pride and did the CSD mentoring as well. You were right, it was unenforceable and I could have blown it off without much being said, but then I would have become the very thing I detested, the arrogant admin that thinks he is right by virtue of having the bit. And I still tread very lightly around CSDs to this day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I also opposed, I think over concerns with CSD tagging. I've often regretted that since, as I think you're generally a great admin. Maybe sometimes we set our sights too high in RfA but so much of it is about trust. I'm sorry anyway. I trust you now and I was in retrospect wrong to oppose you. --John (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but I appreciate the thought and the kind words. Like Malleus's, your vote was sincere, that is all I could have asked. Honestly, I think the process made me a better Wikipedian, and dare I say, a better person. I'm fast approaching 50 years old, but the RfA process and the last year have made me much more thoughtful in my actions, cautious in my criticisms, and more willing to boldly go out on a limb when I feel it is the right thing to do. I have no regrets and no hard feelings towards anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Time goes much faster once you're past 50 ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't wait. It seems to be an accelerating process. --John (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

quick question regarding BLP1E

Heya Dennis, quick question for you. I saw your comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev and I was just wondering how WP:BLP1E works when BLP1E also says "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." It seems like BLP1E could be contraticting itself, or maybe I'm just interpreting this wrong Anywho, thanks for your help good sir! — -dainomite   18:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it is contradicting itself. All our policies are designed to contradict themselves, that way we can just do what we want ;-) Basically, it depends on the event and history behind it. Right now, we don't have enough information to split off the perps for the Boston bombing into a separate article. A separate article for someone who commits a crime is the exception to the rule, and the rule being to not do that if that is the only thing they are known for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation Dennis, I had a good chuckle regarding the first lines too — -dainomite   21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrupt librals?

In your entire comment, all you did was cite my block log and say a bunch of lies. As Daniel said, and as I would have said, this is all you had. But apparently a 3-2 consensus is enough to close an appeal not even a day after it was made. So what if I did things in the past? How can that effect if I should be banned for something completely different now? Have you ever been pulled over for speeding or not wearing your seatbelt? BOSTON MARATHON TERRORIST = Denny's Libral Logic

How can I have a "facination with using Twitter" when I have never used it as a source before now? Oh, and no one has "told that this is often clearly against policy". Can you please point out where I used Twitter as a source after I was told it's against policy? Because that never happened. And what about Bearman's comment that I was told "warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions"? Are you aware Bearman himself made that comment? Still doubt that he thinks he's an Admin?

And not one single person paid any attention to the fact I'm banned from Armenian articles even though this had nothing to do with Armenian articles, as I pointed out. If you were the fair, libral Admin you claim to be, you would see the need to remove this ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Shadow, actually I like you, believe it or not. I'm afraid you are going to end up getting indef blocked if you don't pull back from the way you are dealing with this. I think there was two problems with your request: It was too early, and the tone was wrong. You are upset, you feel wronged, I get it, but you hurt yourself when you take that tone there.
• As for your tone here, it doesn't bother me. I'm an old guy, and I get plenty of vitriol here, but mainly in the hard core business world. I'm pretty hard to rattle, and don't take it personal. All I can say is that I was honest, I used my best judgement and I still maintain the opinion. It's fine if you disagree, and its fine if you are mad about it. But do yourself a favor and don't take it out on other editors, as you just hurt your own case in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis, please get off the approaching 50 old guy kick. You're not 50 yet, and when you are, you won't be "old". I'll let you know when you're old.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to offend you and I appreciate your sympathy. But I still think the ban should be removed and I can defend my case against anyone. It's not too early, it can only be too late to remove a wrongly placed ban. Unless you have better reasoning than that, please remove it. I can't accept all these back-to-back blocks and bans; my sandbox gets to huge and crashes my computer. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't sympathy, I wouldn't insult you that way. It is genuine concern, not only that the next block will end up being an indef, but for what is best for Misplaced Pages. I'm not always "right" (whatever that means), but I do try to balance those two things: humans and encyclopedia. I'm not in favor of leaving the ban in place forever, but I do think it is best to leave in place for now. You can create multiple sandboxes or subpages, and yes, I would be happy to show you how. It is very easy to start and manage. And it is always fine if you disagree with me, I disagree with some of my best friends here quite often. I will always listen, even if I disagree. The key is to not be disagreeable when you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)