Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

Merchant Prince II

Article is still under construction dude. Please see the tag before nominating it. ASHUIND 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)

Holbay

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)

Talkback

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)

RFA

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)

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)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You were never here

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)

  • If that is consensus, then I have no problem with it. I wouldn't normally do that on my own since there aren't reliable sources. If there had been a single, GOOD WP:RS, I wouldn't have taken it to AFD. If someone later makes a redirect, I won't labor it. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg

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)

Bob Timberlake renaming

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)

  • I have a habit of being bold when it comes to stuff like that. The article in question has very little editing over the last few years, so I was guessing few are watching it. I can help with the cleanup later, I'm guessing there aren't that many, as the guy only played football for one year professionally. I know it shows 250 articles linked, but they aren't. I checked the first 5 on the list, none had links. Not sure what the problem is. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I see. Sure. I saw that the article didn't have much editing. But just saw the long list of what links there and groaned. lol. Looking into it further, I see that it was probably the nav templates that are at the bottom of the pages which I see you've corrected. That probably will do it all. Thanks for the work. I just didn't want to start getting tons of messages from people about the change. Take care. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You are correct in that most of the time you want to take those extra steps. In this case, I just got bold since the downside wasn't likely going to be a major issue, and it was easier ;) Hoping to see you continue to help on the article. It still needs work, but I am confident it is plenty good to pass any concerns about WP:V and WP:N. Thanks again. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Hostage Situation 1984

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.
See also User talk:Gailsedotes#dealing with tags -- John of Reading (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

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)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

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)

Response to your post on my talkback page

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)

  • Excellent! With proper expectations, I agree that there is a lot they can learn, and a lot they can contribute. Good luck, and thanks for taking the time to read up. I look forward to many new, young contributors helping out in the future :) Dennis Brown (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • oh, and one quick tip to make it easier for everyone: at the end of your messages in talk areas, you can automatically "sign" by inserting ~~~~ , four tilde marks in a row. It will automatically insert your name, date and time. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Shannon equation + some theory

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

phillips, bryn

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)

COI Tag

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)

Niira Radia

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)

  • Be forewarned that when it comes to the biography of living people, unsourced negative material is not acceptable, and things like client lists are generally considered NOT ok. I suggest you put the info that explains why the client list is needed before you just add a client list. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi. Nothing will go unsourced, please be rest assured. As far as the client list is concerned, I will work on it again tomorrow as it looks more like an "advert" for Niira :-) . As far as negative is concerned, this person came into International media attention due "negative reasons so cant help much there. Your points taken and will try and maintain the neutral point of view. Cheers AKS (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I fix the issue?

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)

  • The part "Teradata saw a 10% increase in revenue in the first year after the spin off from NCR.[6] By 2010, Teradata’s revenue went from $1.5 billion under NCR to $1.9 billion as a standalone company. Teradata hired 2,500 more employees between the spin off in 2007 and April 2011." doesn't seem to have anything to do with him personally, and seems to be a glorification of the company. Sourced or not, I don't understand (and others may agree) why this is in a biography. This is the largest problem, although I'm still concerned about notability in general. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I will remove those sentences and then remove the flag about promotional language, if that's ok. I understand your concern about notability. Koehler is the CEO of a large company--is it more appropriate to merge information about him onto the Teradata article, rather than having an article for him alone? ElaineJS (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    It's a borderline case. Simply being CEO by itself isn't notable, but if he has gotten enough press, then it would be. I think trimming the parts that look promotional will help. If you can find where he has been involved with charities, etc. that would help, as long is was a cited mention and not just to make him look good. Borderline cases sometimes end up at AFD if there is too much material that looks promotional. It is better to be short and to the point than long and "fluffy". Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help and for your quick replies! ElaineJS (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of V-Nasty for deletion

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)

Question about replies

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)

E. Bernard Jordan

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)

  • If you read the page you referenced, using Amazon and Google should only be done as a form of referencing particular quotes from a text, not as a way to verify notability of the work as a whole. If you are trying to demonstrate notability of a work, it should be referenced by a 3rd party that doesn't have a financial interest in the book, such as a New York Times review, etc. If nothing else, a 3rd party, independent party that lists the books as a whole can be used as a reference tying the works to the author. Using Amazon or Google as individual citations to just show each book exists is improper, per the guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think the references were to verify notability of the work as a whole, rather that the books existed, publisher... I guess it hadn't even occurred to me that Amazon's book title, publisher, ISBN information would be different than any other source (a public library, "Open Library", New York Times, etc.), but it sounds like you know better than I do. I won't use Amazon to verify book basic information. Thanks for the reply - always seem to be learning something new here!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. The Amazon links can be seen as "spam" is the issue, but since they (and Google) let you search inside the books for specific passages, they are acceptable, and preferable, if you want to cite a direct quote from the book. A good rule of thumb is: if there are two ways to cite a "product" on Wikipedia, one is commercial, one is not, you go with the one that is not if all else is equal. This removes any question about the citation being used to promote the book. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Just as an aside, because I hadn't remember reading a limiting statement on the book source page, it says that Google and Amazon can be used: "For verifying citations in Wikipedia articles, and finding more info." But, I'll go along with what you say, it doesn't hurt anything to be safer.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Underhill articles

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)

Dennis,pls take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill-- its an editorial obit in the NYT. We have always kept articles on people with these. Always. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering your position. This means a lot to me. I will definitely be more cautious and thoughtful with posting new pages before they are fully formed, and properly sourced. Thanks again! Placepromo (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've now done what I can do on the different articles. I am not perfect, that is obvious, but when I have a question that requires a learned opinion on sources, biographies or educational matters, at least I'm smart enough to ask someone like DGG. Sometimes my instinct is correct, sometimes he gently bites my head off, but I always get an honest assessment. It is handy to help out on a few projects, get to know a few people with experience with "the system" at Wikipedia, and ask for help. It is hard to do things on your own when you are new, or even when you've been here a long time like me. Never be afraid to ask for help, or simply start in a sandbox to develop stuff before going into the dangerous waters of "mainspace". (I'm working on User:Dennis Brown/Barbecue in North Carolina as we speak). I jumped the gun a bit in this situation and will freely admit it. Others won't jump the gun at all, and yet others will jump the gun and never admit they are wrong. Just like in the real world. And as a second note: The name "Placepromo" *might* turn some people off because they might think you are trying to promote something, or work for a PR agency. You shouldn't judge someone by a name, but I changed my name from Pharmboy to my real name for the same reason years ago, because I got tired of people drawing the wrong conclusions. And I've used the name Pharmboy for years, and even own the domain. Sometimes, a rose doesn't smell as sweet with another name in a public forum. Just a thought. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Very good advice which I will happily take! IDKremer (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, there is also a forum to get your name changed :) I have the same account, just requested a name change and was granted. Most anyone is granted unless there is a problem with the name. But either way is good. Wikipedia:Changing username if you are interested. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, Not sure if you can see the My Contributions page for me. If you can, you'll see I've recovered from my initial blunder(s) and have contributed a number of well-sourced articles that have not been challenged. A few of these include: Fisk & Robinson, Harvey Fisk & Sons, John Garrett Underhill, and a few others. We've managed to lift the AFD's for Estelle Skidmore Doremus, David Harris Underhill, Francis Jay Underhill, and John Torboss Underhill though it is still in place for William Wilson Underhill and the Underhill Society of America. Looking forward to challenging these last remaining AFD's. Given the consensus for keep it is just a matter of time. I'll also be sure to continue to start new articles properly, rather than playing catch-up on ones that were not properly written the first time around. It really is a shame that folks don't give more latitude for new contributors. That is a major turn-off for people who might otherwise have the potential to become good contributors over time with the right coaching from more senior contributors. Not to mention, games are less fun when the players agree to not let others play, or play by rules that newcomers don't understand. Grateful for what you've done to help me get started. Thanks again! IDKremer (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind, I nominated two of those ;) The problem with "new editors" is that the signal to noise ratio is out of whack. Half the new editors are only here to put up a few articles that related to them, they profit from, is their pet project, etc. 1/4 of the new editors won't read the rules and don't care about them: they know what is notable. The remaining 1/4 just have to muddle through it. There is a page called Special:NewPages that shows all the new pages being created. Hide bots and patrolled edits some time, just for giggles (I patrol it). For an hour, you get nothing but gold, next hour, nothing but vandalism, junk and stuff that just won't pass criteria. It would amaze you how many article get through for weeks. It is an uphill battle, so sometimes people get ham-fisted. And the fact that everyone has a different way to interpret the guidelines here. So yes, we have likely lost good writers over the years. One of the ways to volunteer is to take the time to help someone new. I try to do that regularly, just a few pointers. Like some of the help I gave you, after I nom'ed some articles, lol. But it is a messy thing, no way to have an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and have it worth reading unless you draw the line somewhere. Coming in fresh has always been like a trial by fire, even when I started 5 years ago. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_2&oldid=1085642198"