User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 2

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.

Please revisit Dennis E. Puleston. I believe I have fixed the issues you noted and am looking for clearence of the tags and/or specific direction to get to this end. Thank you. (Cakerkela (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

• I removed everything except a cleanup tag, which isn't a biggie. The goal is to get someone better at formatting than you and I. I don't think you need to worry about anyone trying to delete it, but it still needs a little work that can be done by others (and you or I) over time. For instance, some of the phrasing, such as "His untimely death was a wake up call to the field of archaeology" and "and upon graduating embarked on his own adventures" are a bit fluffy for an encyclopedia. It's great prose for a magazine or book, but not an encyclopedia. Don't take as an insult, it is just a different style here than most publication. Encyclopedias tend to be a drier read, on purpose, as to not infer any bias or opinion. My specialty is writing advertising, so you can imagine it took me a couple years to really get the hang of it, and I still have a long way to go to be an expert at writing for an encyclopedia. What would be good is finding someone more experienced than I am in the subject matter, who is also more experienced than you at the style of Wikipedia, and recruiting them to help work the tone up to be more appropriate. That is the beauty of Wikipedia, many hands make for light work, and better work. Overall, I think you have put a lot of good work into it and it shows. It is no longer a chunk of coal, now (over time) we need to turn this rough diamond into a finished gem ;) Reading articles on similar people, and maybe helping edit a little on those will help you get into a groove when it comes to writing in the style for an encyclopedia. I'm confident you have what it takes with very little effort and just a little experience. Good job. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is still under construction dude. Please see the tag before nominating it. ASHU^IND 17:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The place to discuss is on the talk page of the article, not here. Right now, it is only a one line description and a link to buy it, which fits the exact reason for the delete tag. You really need to at least start the article in your sandbox before you put it in mainspace like that, so you can at least provide ONE reliable source as to why the game is "notable". Dennis Brown (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've declined your speedy, as there is some notability. While never in the Cooper or Cosworth class, Holbay did have a name that was known. The article does need some work, and I've suggested to the author that some references wouldn't go amiss. (Nor would a bit of wikification... ) Peridon (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I will defer to your judgement, keep an eye on it and may try harder to find a source or two for it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Renright's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dennis and thanks for your message. I shall be delighted to review your contributions and give you my opinion - hopefully later this evening. I don't want any personal info - I think it's best people are judged by on wiki contributions. I'm not sure why you picked me but thank you for valuing my input! Will reply asap. Pedro :  Chat  17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Honestly, I picked you randomly on a list of of admins who are willing to nom for AFD :) I figured that would be the most objective way to get guidance. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Ha! Of course! You can see some of my past nominations here if that's of interest. Pedro :  Chat  18:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Impressive is the best word! Nearly half your edits are in the article space and you're clearly balancing your work across the encyclopedia. Civil discussions and an obvious desire to help shine through. I also admire your neutrality in trying to fix articles even when PRODing them - your efforts at the now redlinked Alan McCurdy were great. I like your cautious use of PROD at times, although I guess on occasion it would be better to try the clean up yourself before proding - but the key thing is that you aren't recommending speedy deletion.

I do have some minor concerns that the "RFA crowd" would pick up on however and they are around deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IAMMEDIC was a slip up for example, although the second nomination where you withdrew was a classy move - again though it might have been better to work the fixes before sending it to AFD. I have some concerns about tagging - George Stonbely was also not really an A7 for example. A larger concern is tagging articles within literally minutes of them being created. Whilst obviously G10 / G3 criteria should be tagged and deleted asap it's never a good idea to tag for A7 within a few moments when maybe they could have been allowed to develop - I grant that moany of these were deleted anyway but it can be very bitey. I note a number of declined A7 speedies in your contribution history too. It's tricky - you have over 2,000 deleted edits so you're clearly accurate most of the time, but I can near guarantee that poor A7 requests is an RFA killer (even if you don't intend to work at CSD). Noting that you've only really being highly active for the last quarter of this year my advice is to wait until the new year, maybe February / March. RFA, as you're no doubt aware, is pretty brutal and you'd need to demonstrate around six months of editing at a reasonable activity level. You also need to really be confident on A7 nominations, and look to PROD or AFD a bit more on them I think.

Other things that are positive are a sensible userpage, no "my spacey" conversations, sensible pushes to use article talk pages and not fragment conversations etc. It might be worth considering archiving your talk rather than just emptying it though (not a big deal). It's probably worth noting that I would support an RFA now - however I assume it's not just my opinion on you as an editor you're after but also my judgement as to the likelihood of passing at this time which I think is only moderate. I honestly hope you don't find this overly harsh and I can only reiterate how impressive your work is. Feel free to get another review - balance will help. I'll keep your page on my watchlist. Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not harsh at all, I am aware that I have some shortcomings, of which I'm working on for both the benefit of Wikipedia and myself. I've recently begun working on patrolling from the back of the list, rather than the front, to catch myself from knee-jerk reacting to article creation. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people actually working on the front end of that list, grasping the 'low hanging fruit'. IAMMEDIC was a classic example of a knee jerk reaction, followed by a bad but good faith nomination, followed by working with the creator extensively, and even on the article itself to try to get it passed notability, then withdrawing cleanly (even though there was still some concern). As weird as it might seem, it was a mistake that made me a better editor. There is no doubt I will make mistakes as admin as well, but I am confident that I will be just a bit more cautious when and if I have the tools. Granted, I should now as well, which is of course the valid point you are making. Your points are well taken, and I will allow a few more months to pass and try to maintain a more consistent approach to my activities, both for myself and to demonstrate to others my ability to do so. Thanks again for taking the time to review my edits, which I know takes a while. I will likely approach you again in the future, if you don't mind. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, I would personally support an RFA now, but I have a feeling others wouldn't. I would take some time and review your contributions to user talk space for declined speedys, to see where you might be able to improve matters. This is something that was brought up in my RFA and I wasn't entirely prepared for how many I'd had declined. Look for where you've informed people that you've nominated their article for speedy deletion but the article name still appears in blue. There are a few of them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Catfish Jim on the easy way to spot declines, and how it can be suprising!! I actually kept a list of my declined speedies before I became an admin, just so I could review them! (probably overkill though). You're most welcome in respect of the review, and I certainly am open for a nudge in the (not too far) future for a follow up. I saw your comment on your user page about archiving - it's possibly a personal thing of mine to be honest, but again RFA regulars like to have easy to access talk archive to review - and I also find it helps in other ways - rather than digging through hundreds of lines, so thanks for that. Best wishes, happy editing and we'll talk again. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good point Jim, this is an area where being "right" 90% of the time isn't good enough, better to leave a borderline article than delete something with potential, if for no other reason than to not bite. I'm starting to really "get it". My nature has always been to debate, to advocate, to argue. I'm old school (I ran my own 3 line BBS pre-interweb...) and used to everyone being more rude online than in real life, and I've had to unlearn a few things. In my older age, I'm learning that isn't always productive here. That is part of my reasoning to want to seek admin here. Obviously to help Wikipedia, which should be obvious, it is a cause I care about, but on a personal level, working with these matters has helped me take a more balanced and thoughtful (and patient) approach to other things in life, so it could create a win win situation. I've come a long way (compared to pre-2008) and there is still room for improvement, particularly in moving slower. At times I feel like we are "behind" here, and seeing so much genuine A7 garbage can make a person jaded, even when looking at what is really just a stub about someone I haven't heard of. Working in that area slightly less may be a good idea for me. Thanks for your input, I appreciate you taking the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Johnny come lately here: moving slower on CSDs is always a good idea. I've slowed down myself, and did so a while before I considered running for admin. Leaving something be for a little while allows for more eyes, and the pedia won't be broken by a couple more of those questionable articles staying around for a couple of hours more. I've seen you around, and I think you have the proper temperament. Good luck, and drop me a line if you go that way--it won't be canvassing, since I am inviting you to keep me posted (I don't look at my watchlist), and I promise I'll ask the shittiest question possible, just to be fair to my position as an abusive admin. I'll deposit an affidavit saying so with my attorneys, Brown, Brown, Pedro and Brown. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  I would be disappointed if you didn't abuse your position and authority in that way ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article You were never here is far too premature and fails WP:NFF. But as its planning IS written of in reliable sources, and as policy does allow that a future event might be discussed if written of in a related article if properly sourced, might you not think my thought toward redirecting the title to the director's article is worth consideration? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. George Ho (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.tanningbeds4less.com/wickedrevenge.html. As a copyright violation, File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You did a great job on the new article for Bob Timberlake (artist) .I think, though, you might have needed to wait a little bit to rename the football player Timberlake so we can see how to properly move this. A notice probably should have been put on that article's talk page. There is still some clean-up left to do, though. Now we have to make sure Bob Timberlake is a proper disambiguation page and I will put {{about}} hatnotes at the top of each of these people's pages to direct them to the other. I'm taking out the redirect on the original Talk:Bob Timberlake page as this shouldn't be redirected. It now belongs to the disambiguation page. The primary concern I have, though, is the over 250 pages that must be corrected that previously pointed just to Bob Timberlake. These need to be corrected as nearly all were directed to what is now Bob Timberlake (football player). Glad to be able to help. Just wanted to make sure we do it right. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Talk:Libyan Hostage Situation 1984.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry Dennis for my late reply. Yes I think that the State Car for President of India article is necessary, but I think I'm too late for this bcs it has already been deleted. I don't understand why any1 should delete that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalinparikh003 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In William M. Beecher, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page William Rogers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you took to create an excellent response. I appreciate the information you've shared with me.

You are correct that having my students create pages about the schools they attend probably wasn't the best choice. If I had to do it over I would choose differently. However, the learning experience for my students (and me!) has been invaluable.

The best way to learn about Wikipedia is to contribute. So many people (including myself) have misconceptions about wikipedia and how it works.

We did indeed miss the notability requirements in our planning. Now we know. I misunderstood when I saw other elementary schools which had entries on Wikipedia and thought that we could do the same. I didn't notice in the notability guidelines that those schools were exceptions. (Or just not noticed, or done a long time ago.)

While it is likely most of my students will be unable to achieve the necessary notability requirements for their articles, that's ok. I actually hope to see some elements of their work merged, changed, or moved as Wikipedia begins to show us how to do it.

Although one of the key mistakes I made was that we should have used our sandbox tools for the development. That was something I didn't understand until now. (I thought the sandbox was just a tool to practice, I didn't realize it was a place to start your article and have it vetted before publication.)

My students are going to forge ahead and learn many lessons about Wikipedia as their work is then editted, challenged, changed, and even deleted.

I appreciate the great work so many people like yourself have put into the tool that is Wikipedia. What I'm attempting to do, is to bring a new generation of young students who use Wikipedia to become at the very least, more aware of how it works, and perhaps even become contributors in the long run. We'll see how well we succeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex van d (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. -- F = q(E + v × B) 09:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

advice please dennis to fix the probs on this entry. thanks for your help in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousinlondon (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

woops. i have accidentally deleted the coi tag when editing. it wasnt intentional - i cant find the right template in order to put it back though. can you reinstate please? all best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousinlondon (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dennis, I am in the process of writing this article and when read in totality, the list will be relevant. Please bear with me for one day and then take a call on the contents. Thanks AKS (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown, I removed some wording from the Michael F. Koehler page that I believe you may have considered promotional. Do you mind checking and removing that particular tag if the page is acceptable? I realize this page might still need more work to determine notability. Thanks. ElaineJS (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article V-Nasty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V-Nasty (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dennis, You flagged an article I submitted (ReUse Connection) for deletion and I've made a couple of attempts to post a reply, but I'm not sure if I did so correctly. Is there any way you could please check and let me know if I posted my reply correctly? Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginalizardi (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the references for the E. Bernard Jordon books. I'm a bit confused because when performing ISBN searches Amazon.com is one of the search options.

What is a better source for verifying published book information (year, publisher, ISBN)?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placepromo (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)