Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 15 April 2012

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Whisperback}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Whisperback}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

ARCHIVES - Archive 2006-1010 - Archive 2011 - Archive 2012

BEFORE YOU POST - Discussions about the content of articles belong on the talk page for that article. This includes discussions about text, images, tags, or other physical things on the page. This way everyone can participate. If you like, you can post a note here pointing me to it. If you want to discuss general policy, ask for help on a page you haven't seen me on, or other topics that aren't related to the actual article, post it here. I archive frequently, check there if a discussion has "disappeared". Thanks -Dennis

2012 in UFC events

When the situation calms down (or even before then if you want), would you be willing to do a peer review of 2012 in UFC events? You aren't heavily involved in MMA articles and have only gotten involved though AfDs of various articles. If this concept is going to be continued to full year articles (2012 in mixed martial arts) and for past years, I'd be interested in hearing from a somewhat uninvolved person how the articles could be further improved on. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will do what I can. I have commented in a few places with the goal of opening a few minds, but there are many who simply hate change, so it will take some time and patience. I don't have an exact picture in my head of how it should be done, but I do think you and Mtking are moving the right direction, in spite of a lot of close minded opposition. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, you like the rule book right? Well, here you go! WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• What you are doing it cherry picking sentences that fit your desires, not understanding the policies as a whole. I can't fix that, only you can. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellently written

This is excellently written, much better than I could have done. If people will listen is another story, but let's not go there. I personally would have linked moved forward without you to WP:5THWHEEL , but that might be a little harsh (or not). Well done. --kelapstick 12:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've posted in a few places, a bit of a velvet hammer, if you will. I don't contribute content to MMA, and I'm hoping that that some people will listen simply because I'm objective, an old timer here and not an admin. Most won't, but change will be easier if we can change the momentum from negative, to contributory, of a few people at a timer. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is what was needed, that and your follow up. I'm not an MMA person myself (not since I watched UFC 1 on an illegal PPV box shhhhh). Everyone finds change difficult, on and off wiki, I think you've done a great service with your comments, heeded or not. --kelapstick 13:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann". Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Udar55 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 UFC events

Alright I did some work on it. How's the page looking so far? Any suggestions? Glock17gen4 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm no expert, but it seems to be shaping up nicely. Keep in mind that it may change in format several times before it is all said and done, so don't get too attached to any one way of doing things. Just keep a cool head and talk about it on the talk page. Sometimes several ways are tried, and they end up going back to the first way. It is all part of the process. As you may or may not have noticed, I don't actually contribute to the content on the articles anyway, my function here is mainly to help the transition go more smoothly and help people understand the reasons for the changes. You know 100x more about MMA than I will ever know, so there isn't much I can do to help you with the actual content. Your positive attitude toward the changes is very much appreciated. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea I expect more changes, hopefully a name change from "2012 in UFC events" to "UFC events in 2012" will happen, because right now it's having trouble being listed on search engines. Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• The place to bring that up at is at the main MMA page, not on that page, since it will affect every page in the project, not just that page. Most of these omnibus article start with the year, rather than end with the year, but I don't think that it is required. Not something I have enough experience with to have a definite answer for. I'm fine with either name. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alison_Buchanan/Archive

See? I told you they were a sockpuppet. 85.210.178.153 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• That wasn't the issue. I believed you. But the way you went about handling it was more disruptive than the sockpuppet, which is why you were blocked. I would strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the proper procedure or you will get blocked again. Two wrongs don't make a right. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oh, and don't revert user's talk pages. They are free to delete any content they want. Reverting a legitimate blanking of a users talk page is disruptive. It isn't your job to police her talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but nobody EVER complained before. Nobody had an issue when I pointed out her other accounts, and nobody had a problem when I prevented her from deleting her page. Heck, nobody had a problem with ANY of the edits I have made against vandals and sockpuppets, including the infamous Komodo Lover. Only you have had any issues with what I am doing. Nobody else. Why, I fail to understand. Are you trying to encourage vandalism and sockpuppeting? Nobody else has had a problem with believing me, ONLY you. 88.109.27.76 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yet you were blocked for disruption once someone did complain. That should tell you that you are doing something wrong. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback // My response in the article talk page

==[[ SeeTalkGrow ]] restored==

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. CandleOfFaith (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC) --CandleOfFaith (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User Scottdelaney1067

It looks like you've had some interaction with this user. Any idea what he's up to with his peculiar editing activity? Mojoworker (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• His talk page request have been "different" as well, and I've tried to be as helpful as possible. It is one of two things, and I'm just not sure which. I *think* it is innocent enough, and perhaps a young or extraordinarily inquisitive individual attempting to participate at a level beyond their current capability. I hadn't been watching the contribs, just the talk, but it seems time to have someone quietly assess the situation. If you have a 'go to' guy, go to, otherwise I can. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm heading out the door, so you go ahead if you want. Otherwise, I'll ask User talk:HJ Mitchell to take a look when I get back. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've taken it to him, but he hasn't edited in a day and my post is 21 hours old. May have to seek another voice if he isn't around soon. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's fine, HJ must be busy off–wiki. Looks like Scottdelaney1067 hasn't been editing either, so maybe we can wait a bit longer. I think your assessment of him is likely correct and his editing is probably innocent enough, but I too worry about his competence. What I don't know where that line is drawn – I guess that's where an admin can help, otherwise I'd just say we should talk to him directly. Mojoworker (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• No reply. I've asked someone else who has worked with he and I before. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Looks like HJ hasn't been very active recently. He must be busy. But Scott Delaney hasn't edited either, so maybe he's grown bored with Misplaced Pages... Mojoworker (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dennis

Just a brief note to thank you for taking the time to read the BMW R1100GS 'talk' and noticeboard and Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban - I appreciate that that's a lot of reading! And when a particular editor is throwing violation codes around it's always good to get someone's clear minded and objective view of things. (And, hopefully, the other Dennis won't seek out this brief communication I've made with you and use it to accuse me of some other kind of violation! Who knows...). Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't expect an issue. I asked him to provide diffs and he hasn't. You both have gotten equally snippy at times, but this happens in discussions and a degree of it is expected and should be tolerated. It is obviously your call, but I recommend you refrain from any further comment at that ANI, just leave it alone to die its own natural death. The content dispute doesn't belong there anyway. As to the merits of the content dispute, I have no opinion nor desire to dig far enough into it to have one. That is what WP:DR is for. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at UFC on FX 4. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You have been given ample opportunity see view Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 where it was deleted via a consensus in a public forum. If you continue to revert what has already been decided at AFD, you risk being blocked for disruptive behavior. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC) You do realize that UFC on FX 4 was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4, and that my edit was consistent with the closing of that article?

• Calling my actions vandalism is disruptive and can get you blocked when you know otherwise. Removing those comments would be appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• And you might notice, a sysop has protected that page due to your vandalism, at my request. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

131.123.122.38

Just to let you know that whole range has now been blocked by MuZemike see here; obviously policy means it cant be linked to a named account, but it is obvious which of the MMA socks it is. Mtking 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• A big one? ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Block isn't showing up yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

as it is across the whole range you need to look at Special:Contributions/131.123.122.0/23 Mtking 22:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I figured something like that 5 minutes after I wrote that, but then I had to go cook tacos. With all this petty stuff going on, you might want to recruit some more experienced people for help in formatting and presenting a larger argument for an RfC. Part of the problem is having too many arguments, valid or not, that confuses the issue. The last thing you need is someone picking apart your weakest argument, when you would have been better off not even mentioning it. It just makes for distraction, and there will be enough socks there that more distraction won't be needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I accidentally hit rollback while trying to view diffs in my watchlist.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• It happens, no harm, no foul. Thanks for dropping a note so no there wouldn't be any confusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

While I sympathise with you motives, I do not see Dispute Resolution is going to help in the slightest, as given Udar55 off wiki comments at the Sherdog forums, he is not likely to accept anything other than the standalones, I have asked Beeblebrox for his comments, but from my POV these stand alone articles are not notable, they fail the NOTNEWSPAPER policy and countless other guidelines and I think they should be deleted, I have never been completely sold on the idea of the omnibus article, as I feel most of the content (the fight stats etc) is just Fancruft (a pov enhanced by the actions and comments on the Sherdog forums), and have supported it as the only viable compromise. However if you feel that the Mediation Cabal can help resolve this then please give it a go, but lets get on with this. Mtking 06:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• We don't have much of a choice here, either accept the minority view, or pursue further opinions, so just let me know. You and TG should take the lead since you know the sport better than I, and I will be happy to participate or help in any way I can. Let me know. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not intend to actively seek to drive this forward now, I have wasted two much time and feel that as there is no clear policy or guideline path trough this, what ever route is taken, the side of the debate that feels hard done by will not accept the process. Therefore upon my return from a business trip I will not feel any obligation to refrain from nominating any MMA article I feel fails policy for deletion. Mtking 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - An invitation

I'm not exactly sure which editors who have been involved in the original discussions I should notify of this - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland - but rather than mistakenly leave out, I'll instead include. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you invite one then you should invite all, per WP:CANVAS, so there is no question about your intentions. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, hi, I genuinely wasn't aware that that was classed as canvassing because in the discussions concerning this before I was advised to notify the editors that had contributed to relevant discussions - and also that notifications via 'talk' pages were okay. As I said in the 'talk' page messages to the editors involved, I wasn't exactly sure of who should or should not be notified so rather than make the mistake of not notifying the people involved I instead notfied them all - as far as I'm aware there were none left out. So really it wasn't a case of selective picking and choosing, it's just that of the editors previously involved all seemed to have their own ideas on the subject which they came to independentally. Rivercard (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(I'm sure that in the original Noticeboard discussion someone pointed out that notifications via 'talk' pages wasn't classed as canvassing, but I'll make sure I the double-check that.) Thanks, Rivercard (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just had a check through and the only one I can see that wasn't notified was someone called 842U, but this was an editor who seemed heavily in favour of the case I was putting so I think that shows that I wasn't trying to be selective. Also, I found the quote on the original Noticeboard discussion where I was fisrt accused that says, 'His "canvasing" wasn't canvasing, it was on the talk page of someone who had already participated in the DR 4 days ago.' I genuinely took that to mean that 'talk' page notifications were within bounds. Regards,

Rivercard (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't scolding you, just informing you and pointing to the guideline on it. You said you weren't sure who to notify, and it is common for people to not know the policy on it. If you had only selected certain editors (even if random) it would have come back and caused problems, so as a general rule, it is just better to tell anyone that participated, as a preventative measure. I really didn't think you were trying to canvas, I just didn't want you to get accused of it. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Glad that's cleared up! Rivercard (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Again, I'm not exactly sure on notifications - this time re: if a message goes out automatically to those involved in discussing a case or not? Not sure. So, just in case, I'll just drop this brief note that I've left a response to your message on the ANI board. Regards.
  Rivercard (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Messages don't automatically go out for discussions, it is assumed that if someone has already started participating, they will watch that page. It isn't required that you notify when you respond in that way, although sometimes it is fine to. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Award for stalking User:JamesBWatson

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For being a wonderful stalker at Jamees' talk page and making people almost believe that either you would be a very good friend in real life or you might be obsessed with him! ;) Yasht101 23:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hehe, thanks! I've learned a lot from JBW, and yeah, he is probably the kind of guy I could play darts and drink a pint with. Level headed guy that's easy to respect. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For supporting the Special:UnwatchedPages discussion Mrlittleirish 13:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time

I apologise. I never really thought about how raising the issue in two different places would look to others, and you're right that I should have linked the SPI case. Thanks for your input. Basalisk ⁄_berate 20:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• No harm, no foul. I didn't think you were trying to do anything bad, I was just concerned because someone else might. The issue is that there are too few admins, so many of us non-admins with years of experience will work at ANI to help out. Most issues can be handled without admin tools anyway. In the future, it helps if you post links to any other actions you have outstanding with the editor, such as the SPI. If the editor had been really over the line and it needed quicker action, then ANI would have been the right place to be, with disclosure. His actions were kinda rude but not enough so to get a block, if he wasn't a sock, which is what I have to assume as I'm not the SPI clerk and the case wasn't brutally obvious. You're a great contributor, don't let others drag you into being a little snarky. Yes, there are times in discussions that I would love to choke the stuffing out of another editor, but I've learned that ignoring the rudeness (ie: not taking the bait) serves me better at convincing the other editors who haven't !voted yet. You were never really rude to him, but the tone did distract from the strength of your argument. This might give an outsider fodder to judge the messenger, instead of the merits of the message. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

About that interaction ban...

So there are no open disputes between me and Rivercard, and the current version of BMW R1100GS is exactly what he wanted. I intend to research further references and will probably have to seek formal mediation at some point in the future. But I can't get the guy off my talk page. He keeps finding new things to pick fights over. Is there some way to get an interaction ban without going through an entire round of point-counterpoint? I don't want to start yet another endless noticeboard discussion. I want to leave the issue closed until an article edit is in dispute, and a formal process is in place to prevent length of comments from exploding out of all reason. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I will drop a note on Rivercard's talk page asking him to avoid your talk page. More than likely, that will be enough. If it isn't, and if you are patient, then yes you can get him to stop (excepting valid templates, etc.). It is your talk page. If he continues, reply to his post with something like "I appreciate your opinions, but please don't post on my talk page." and say nothing else. You might have to do this several times, making it polite but stronger. Never reply with anything other than this type of statement, no matter how tempted you are. If after 4 or 5 times, if he keeps adding to your talk page, then you go to ANI with a short, non-emotional complaint that is simply "An editor and I simply don't get along and have been involved in several disputes, so I decided to simply avoid him. I've asked him on 5 different times to not post on my talk page but he won't quit. (insert the diffs here). I'm asking for an interaction ban." I'm guessing it won't come to that, and that after a time or two he will just leave you alone. You're both good editors, you just don't get along. It happens. I have learned (the HARD WAY) that the easiest way to get into trouble at ANI or discussions is to be too verbose and/or emotional. Always keep it simple, clean, without opinion or emotion, state the facts, provide diffs. Long rambling complaints make admins want to skip over and let someone else handle it. It isn't easy to do sometimes, but it is the most effective way to get results. At ANI, they (we) don't care how you FEEL about it, they care about wrong or right, and finding a quick solution. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede image Major depressive disorder

Hi Dennis.

Thank you very much for your input at Major depressive disorder. Your reaction exactly mine. The Dutch article is now illustrated with Vincent's Sorrow, as suggested by Rob. No drama there.

William Boyd (Rinpoche) is now raising the issue directly with the Kröller-Müller Museum. I'm not sure what the outcome might be there. They might resist it as fiercely as the editors at MDD. Hard to judge.

William is profoundly sorry to be the cause of so much grief.

Oh dear ... we really are all different people! AnotherWeeWilly (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)