Misplaced Pages

User talk:Dennis Brown: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:19, 14 December 2016 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,407 edits →Not nearly as kind as whom?: WP:CIR← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:50, 19 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,938 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 48) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}}{{User:MiszaBot/config {{Administrator topicon}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 40 |counter = 48
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{box|align=center|padding=12px|border color=#880000|border size=3px|header=STATUS: Not very active|Real life is a lot more interesting than enwp right now, so I may or may not be here for long periods. If a problem is urgent, you probably want someone else to handle it.}}
{{TOC-right}}{{archives|auto=yes}}
{{TOC-left}}{{archives|auto=yes}}
{{clear}} {{clear}}
<!-- {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner|75}} -->
{{user talk:Dennis Brown/header}}
<hr> <!--
{{box|&nbsp;&nbsp;I WILL NOT SIGN A LOYALTY OATH TO THE WMF&nbsp;&nbsp;|spacing=10px|type=black|span=300|align=center||text align=center|font size=18px|height=100px|width=500px}}
'''NOTICE''' - I'm going to away more than I'm here for the next few months. I'm not likely to get involved with long, drawn out issues. I will probably do little edits here and there, but any complicated issues should probably go elsewhere. ] - ]
<CENTER>My loyalty is to the community, not the Foundation</center>
<hr>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
-->
<div class="center">]</div>


== ] of ] ==
== Hope all is well ==
]


The article ] has been ]. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
Hello Dennis,


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
Hope all is well with you and your family. It feels good to be back to where I belong. I've had a great learning experience from you and several other people who I'm thankful for. I look forward to working with you again in the future. Best. ] (]) 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== TTAAC ==


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
Hello Dennis.
FYI there's been another 1RR violation by this user shortly after you closed the AE thread with yet another "last warning" to that user: . ]] 02:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*Why should some random former employee of the government's opinion be in a BLP? The rules shouldn't slip because Donald Trump is a Conservative.--v/r - ]] 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::TP, this is not about content, it's about conduct and competence. It's about all the editors who don't even go to speak up at AE because disruptive editors such as TTAAC have driven them off of articles that Arbcom recognized need special protection. I don't understand why Admins are so reluctant to enforce Arbcom discretionary sanctions and then even when a formal case is filed they second-guess whether the sanctions are really necessary. ]] 02:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::My comment was **definitely** about conduct. It's about editors using Misplaced Pages for political reasons and using AE to game it. It's about editors, like me, who have been driven off articles because of the double standard applied to BLPs of conservatives. I do not see a single "former employee said..." on HRC's article. Not a single one. There are many former FBI investigators who have made comments and none of them are in her article. If everyone was treating his BLP exactly like they'd treat hers, then there wouldn't be any conflict.--v/r - ]] 02:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Well, TP, I don't think that the concern you've just expressed relates to the enforcement of sanctions wrt the amply documented and longstanding misconduct of the editor in question. At any rate, we shouldn't camp out on Dennis' talk page for a discussion of the general editing environment. Feel free to visit me on my talk any time you are so inclined. ]] 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::No violation. I removed the contentious text one time; the two diffs cited by SPECIFICO are unrelated. (I should also reiterate that the AE report —because I didn't—but rather the additional stipulation "'''You&nbsp;... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus'''.")] (]) 03:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Sigh. If you don't know how reverts work... ]] 03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::An ''edit'' is not a ''revert''; we are allowed to make more than one ''edit'' within a 24 hour period without being instantly reported to admins or drama boards. I doubt any neutral observer will agree with SPECIFICO's characterization of —in which I trimmed and revised the text with no change to the meaning of the paragraphs, for example by replacing "''Trump mocked the report as fabricated''" with "''Trump's transition team dismissed the allegations, remarking: 'These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction',''" and ''added'' material on the FBI's dissent (which Volunteer Marek )—as a "revert" of any kind. Nor is the first part of —in which I move a sentence to a different part of the same section to improve readability—a "revert." Only constitutes a ''revert''—and I only made it once. Obviously, Dennis Brown is more than competent to review the diffs to for himself see if SPECIFICO's representation of them is accurate; I would remind SPECIFICO, however, that she has been admonished in the past for her portrayal of my edits and edit summaries (and for requesting sanctions against me), and should be careful not to get in the pattern of filing frivolous complaints against other users.] (]) 04:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::<s>It's two diffs, and two different texts, but it's also two different reverts, as TTAAC knows very well. And this edit is particularly problematic because, as has been pointed out, it misrepresents the source. The text inserted by TTAAC claims that " The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not support CIA's assessment". That is NOT what the source says. What the source actually says is "The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling". In other words, the source says that while both the FBI and CIA '''agree''' that Russia meddled with the election, the FBI is not convinced about what the '''goal''' of that meddling was. TTAAC's edit '''purposefully''' tries to make it seem like the FBI is disputing that Russia meddled with the election at all. If this hadn't been brought up , then maybe it could be attributed to just sloppy rendering of the source, but the edit was made after it had been brought to the talk page (also by TTAAC on another user's talk page indicates that they were aware of the issue). They have also tried to skew it in this way in other articles. Combined with the evidence already presented at WP:AE this is a pretty clear indication that the purpose here is just plain ol' POV pushing (and I get really irked when this is done by misrepresenting sources since that's basically a form of lying and if this was a scholarly community it'd be cracked down on hard).] (]) 19:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)</s>
:::::::::"''The text inserted by TTAAC claims that 'The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not support CIA's assessment'.''" {{Ping|Volunteer Marek}} has me confused with another user. '''I did not add the text in question'''—as the very diff he cited I simply moved it, which is not a "revert." If I had added that text after Volunteer Marek my moderate, well-sourced, and neutral version ("''an earlier October 31 The New York Times report on a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe into alleged ties between Trump and Russia&nbsp;... said to have determined 'even the hacking into Democratic emails&nbsp;... was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump'.''") by falsely claiming it was OR (check for yourself), ''then'' I would be at two reverts. '''To reiterate, however, the heavy-handed and inaccurate version was added by '''—and as a consequence of Volunteer Marek deleting my version, which actually made very clear that the dispute was limited to Russia's motivation. (With this , we're now back to approximately the same thing I had in mind.) So, no, I won't be accepting responsibility for MyMoloboaccount's revert.] (]) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::You're right, you moved it, rather than inserted it (that was MMA). My apologies, I withdraw my comment.] (]) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{reply to|Volunteer Marek|TheTimesAreAChanging|SPECIFICO}} Great, now that this is cleared up, can we PLEASE take this as a learning opportunity? This is evidence of the goggles that politics puts on us all. Can we please remember that we're Wikipedians first? Because I'm losing faith and I need this one guys (and gals).--v/r - ]] 23:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*Hello gentlemen. I see everything is squared away. That is good. ] - ] 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
==Not nearly as kind as whom?==
. Are you not aware that I have a very cavalier and lax attitude toward blocks and bans and wield my admin powers in a reckless fashion? Are you saying you're ''worse''? This is awful. ] &#124; ] 15:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
:Sounds like grounds for a block!] (]) 19:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
:Naw, you're a pushover Bish. A regular softy. On the otherhand, I'm getting down right cranky in my old age. ] - ] 20:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::Fear not. Someone {{diff|User talk:YahwehSaves|754726262|754502350|now has an opportunity}} to '']''. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 06:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
] from the past month (December 2024).
:::Yup, one month block. There is no way he misunderstood the terms, demonstrated by the fact that he climbed up on the "First Amendment" soapbox. ] - ] 14:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

::::And the Bible soapbox. Good call with the block. ] &#124; ] 16:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC).
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]

</div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]

] '''Oversight changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]

</div>
</div>

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

] '''Arbitration'''
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.

] '''Miscellaneous'''
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

Latest revision as of 16:50, 19 January 2025

STATUS: Not very active
Real life is a lot more interesting than enwp right now, so I may or may not be here for long periods. If a problem is urgent, you probably want someone else to handle it.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Barnstars given to me since 2012

Proposed deletion of Terry_Blade

Notice

The article Terry_Blade has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Dennis Brown: Difference between revisions Add topic