Randy from Boise wrote:I said howdy to Dennis yesterday and gave him a link to this thread. I knew he wouldn't post here...
Here's part of his reply:
On his user talk page, Dennis Brown wrote:
* * *
"I probably AM ANI's biggest participant. So what? It isn't by accident, I said I intended to patrol ANI in my RFA, Q1 (
link)
"And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here.
"The 'is that his real name?' stuff is [even] funnier. Anyone with the tech savvy of a 15 year old could locate me and verify that its my real name. Tarantino got it right because he bothered to look. * * *
"I personally have plenty of complaints about Wikipedia, but I find people [at WPO] get it wrong as much as they get it right. Not talking about anyone in that thread specifically, but some users on that site don't really care about the truth, they just want to run people down. And they have less accountability than Wikipedia itself, so I don't see the point, and I can't take it too serious. But thanks for the link, it was slightly amusing, slightly annoying, but not very enlightening."
—Dennis Brown 7:15 pm, June 18, 2014 (UTC−7)
The Dave Brat quote on his underdog primary victory is "[a]nd I was blessed. I mean, it's a miracle. What do I attribute it to? First of all, I attribute it to God. And I'm utterly humbled and thankful. I'm a believer and so I'm humbled that God gave us this win. But right with that, God acts through people, and God acted through the people on my behalf." Right now, it appears to have settled in the article, cited to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
To me there's nothing remarkable about the statement. Virginia is Bible Belt USA country. I think most political candidates thank God and give praise to Jesus and so forth. It's not wacky, at least not in and of itself. It's boilerplate. From my reading of the talkpage debate about including it, those against said "hey, there is no reason to highlight and indent this quote, it says elsewhere in the article that he praises God frequently."
Dennis however claimed there that it "offers a window into the mind of the subject. While many athletes and policitians are quick to thank God for their success, it is rare when someone credits God with actual intervention, and is sincere in that belief. This wasn't a one off remark or slip of the tongue, it was a clear statement by someone who is devoutly religious, and is in fact quite learned in divinity, thus was aware of the implications of the statement."
So yeah I found this view silly and felt he was reading too much into it, and the assertion that Brat was thereby "crediting God with actual intervention" was in fact excruciating as I said. That's when I likened it to where God actually intervened for Moses by parting the Red Sea, an analogy that I know you all found quite witty.
Here is the part from the Brat talkpage where Dennis came to be at odds with Nazariy:
*'''Oppose deletion''' from an outsider's perspective. - In this example, the quote isn't in dispute, is properly sourced and offers a window into the mind of the subject. While many athletes and policitians are quick to thank God for their success, it is rare when someone credits God with actual intervention, and is sincere in that belief. This wasn't a one off remark or slip of the tongue, it was a clear statement by someone who is devoutly religious, and is in fact quite learned in divinity, thus was aware of the implications of the statement. As he himself has made it clear that you can't separate him from his beliefs, using this specific quote gives the reader a true and accurate picture of his philosophy, in an extraordinarily concise way. Without question, it falls safely within our BLP guidelines and can not possibly violate [[WP:WEIGHT]] as it is core to who he says he is. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] | [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] | [[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::So, you agree with {{U|Cwobeel}} that every single time he invokes God in public environment we will put the invocation into the article and when we do that we are not violating undue weight?--[[User:NazariyKaminski|NK]] ([[User talk:NazariyKaminski|talk]]) 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Your question is entirely too [[WP:POINT]]y to warrant a reply. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] | [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] | [[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Big "wow." "So, you agree with {{U|Cwobeel}} that every single time he invokes God in public environment we will put the invocation into the article and when we do that we are not violating undue weight?" This triggered the snooty WP:POINT remark from Dennis and it later snowballed to "drag you to ANI" threat by Dennis, and also like six other ANI goons throwing similarly bogusly applied policy jargon at Nazariy, and they were all clearly setting him up for a block. Very disgusting, and we see this all the time from the ANI crowd.
When I responded Randy or whomever it was that praised his non-anonymity, "are you confident that's actually his name?" I neither claimed it was or wasn't. There are plenty of people who use real-name-sounding handles on Wikipedia. Like James B. Watson (who isn't really any James B. Watson) and Bwilikins (whose first name doesn't begin with "B" and whose last name is not Wilkins). What I was saying is that such handles are not any indication of non-anonymity without further information.
It's fine with me if Dennis reads this thread and I don't care if he finds it "not very enlightening." One really has to be willing to listen and learn before he or she can be enlightened.