User talk:Dreadstar/Archive05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

How are you?

Hi Dreadstar!How are you?Anything exciting?Thisis Islaammaged126,the"old" Coolgirly88.I hope you are well.IslaamMaged126 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


That's O.K.Are you working on anything new on wikipedia?IslaamMaged126 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Do you think you should block 207.102.176.15 from editing?IslaamMaged126 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Tyar‎

He continues to remove the sock tag on his userpage. I've reverted him twice, what do you suggest be done? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPW

Hey, Dreadstar! Well, my name is on this page, as awaiting approval. Could you please add my name to this page? Any admin is allowed to add a user to it. Thanks in advance! Dreamy § 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Dreamy § 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NPW

Thanks for the round of approvals :)

Snowolf How can I help? 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't spotted it earlier: we would be grateful if you use the standard template when approving users for NPW :) Snowolf How can I help? 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC

IRC me buddy. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, switched to my laptop, which is downstairs, unlike my desktop, which is upstairs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for semiprotect

Hi, Dreadstar. Thanks for semiprotecting Neanderthal. Lots of vandalism there in recent weeks. TimidGuy 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A new troll

Either 24.167.169.163, Tyar, Marhawkman, or someone else created an attack account, 97a2291395u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can you block this one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And now there's Lestralen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This account is only being used for disruptive editing and edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Permblocking Lestralen might have been a touch overkill. He's not malicious per se, just kind of dumb. Granted, you're the guy with the Big Red Buttons, so... HalfShadow 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, Dreadstar knows what he's doing. I'm a bit worried, however, this has never happened before like this, is it possible that it is the same attacker, Tyar? Should I tag 24.27.177.46 as {{ipsock}} of Lestralen or ... ? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh sure, I have no doubt and it doesn't really matter to me; anyway, given his (admittedly quite short) edit list, he's a minor troll, but I like to be as fair as I can. HalfShadow 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, the reason I indef blocked is due to the history of vandalism over the past few weeks - which includes edits like this. But if you think he'll straighten up, I can reduce the block on good faith... Dreadstar † 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did see that. It's a bit of a tricky call to make: on the one hand, he does actually seem to be trying to help, but on the other, he doesn't seem to understand the concept of actually useful information versus fancruft, or 3RR. At the very least, he's blatantly guilty of the second, and the fact that he switched to a random IP after I warned him as such isn't helpful either... HalfShadow 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the block to three hours on good faith. Let me know if the warring and vandalism continue, and I'll look into it further. Dreadstar † 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the chances that 24.167.169.163 and 24.27.177.46 are from the same ISP? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some research earlier today. According to this edit by 24.27.177.46, there is some indication that the person is Tyar. Is it safe to assume that it was him pulling Lestralen's strings all along with a rotating ip? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:CHECK would be of more use because I heard it could scout all others. The last time I began a WP:SUSPSOCK report it took forever to finish; in the end, obvious socks weren't blocked and walked free, that really saddened me. You think we have enough evidence for a CheckUser? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
May these anons all be included in the CU along with the vandal accounts / disruptive editors? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Here we go, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tyar‎. It took me a while to learn the ropes but I'm sure it's correct. Anything else I probably forgot? Are diffs required? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you make sure Tyar keeps the sock template on his userpage 'til the CU report is solved? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the talk page of Demon Lord Naraku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). An obvious copy/paste, and perhaps another attacker. Should this person join the others in the CU or do you have something else in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to add this Demon Lord Naraku to said CU. Isn't it rather strange that a new batch of usernames are being created on Halloween? And all are partaking in the DBZ-related pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that a bad or good thing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

67.68.53.237

I noticed that earlier, you were the admin who blocked 67.68.53.237 from editing. FYI, he's at it again. Groink 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

admin

Dreadstar,how do you become an Admin?Just wondering.IslaamMaged126 12:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello IslaamMaged126, you can find out all you want to know (and more) about being an administrator at this page under "Administrators". Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

My RFA
Hey buddy! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and if you ever need any backup, I'm your guy! By the by, you coming on IRC anytime soon? ;) GlassCobra 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

On this page, could you please put my name in the 3939th spot? Thanks. Dreamy § 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Dreamy § 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Belated Halloween

Happy Halloween!
Click there to open your card! → → →
Its all thanks to you; I found the card you gave to Fang Aili and I decided to make something from it. Anyway, I'm glad you liked it! Cheers!! --Zacharycrimsonwolf 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I noticed you deleted the Scripts & Scruples article because it was previously deleted well another such article has been created. Charlie Baker (B&B) was previously deleted as the character isn't even on yet and notability is questionable. Last night it was created again. Can it be deleted without going through the process again? IrishLass0128 13:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you please delete this page? Dreamy § 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

YAY!!!!!

You're here! You're editing! Ariel is happy again! Ariel♥Gold 19:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise! Good to see ya, buddy. :) GlassCobra 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
and from me... a little worried about you.(I know I worry too much.)Happy to see you are back!(olive 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
Not fun and not a good time, and not better than a poke in the eye with a frozen cod (as we say in the old country).It can take a long time to get over. Take it easy.(olive 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
Its your birthday? Wishing you a joyful day....cake no cod.(olive 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
PS And lots of Monty Python.(olive 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Atkins

Thank you for your diligence in rechecking whether this article really belonged in the diabetes category in addition to the diabetes subcategory of low-carb diets. OccamzRazor 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that you changed your mind and reinclued the article in the Diabetes category based upon a supposed study of the Atkins diet on 10 obese diabetics. However, the study was misrepresented in the wiki article as being the Atkins diet. I deleted the false claim and linked to the actual abstract of the study, which shows it wasn't Atkins. I also began a discussion of the issue at Talk:Atkins_Nutritional_Approach#Diabetes_Category and would appreciate if we could further discuss that matter there. Or, if you simply now agree that the article doesn't belong, perhaps you could just remove the category again. Thanks. OccamzRazor 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I put the diabetes cat back because the Atkins diet clearly addresses and has had studies regarding diabetes. I've added a citation for Atkin's book Atkins Diabetes Revolution as well as a link to a The West Suffolk Diabetes Service, both of which strongly link to Atkins as a Diabetic diet. I can also supply references from Atkins books and websites, as well as other references linking the diet to treatment of diabetes. The Diabetes cat should stay. Dreadstar † 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Need some advice on edit war

I hope you can advise me on the proper protocol to resolve this issue. On the Boy band article, editor User:Fadiga09 is not willing to participate in discussions regarding his edits. Instead, he keeps forcing his edits without further discussion. I've made numerous attempts at getting him to discuss this issue on the discussion page for Boy band - including writing in his talk page, but he won't listen. I've cited in the article multiple reliable references, but regardless he keeps reverting with edits that are not cited. I believe I'm going about this the right way in staying within the means of Wikipedia, but I'm at the point that if I revert one more time, it'll break that 3-reverts rule. Please point me in the right direction on how to get this issue resolved. Thanks! Groink 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi. I just sent you an email, and just wondered if you could have a look when you get a chance, please. Cheers TigerShark 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. TigerShark 21:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl

Could you delete this page, and move this page to it? Thanks! Dreamy § 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, that's great! Dreamy § 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 172.163.213.175

Thanks for blocking 172.163.213.175. FYI - I fixed the "IPsock" tag there. You put "{{IPsock|User:Pionier}}" instead of "{{IPsock|Pionier}}". -- HiEv 10:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent catch on that tag! I knew I was missing something there...glad you fixed it! Dreadstar † 10:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Good detective work on identifying the sock as well. Dreadstar † 10:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help and thanks for undoing his vandalism. I've run into Pionier before, so that's how I recognized his edit pattern.
It looks like Pionier is learning to be more subtle about his vandalism. I just noticed that he used another AOL IP address, 172.134.112.74, back in August to do much the same edits, and he got away without being blocked that time. The guy is a real PITA. -- HiEv 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, bad detective work -- this is not a 'sockpuppet' of User:Pionier, but an IP address sometimes used by me (see [1]). All of the edits made to those articles were obviously not vandalism and were entirely valid, so I'm going to undo your changes since you have both removed factual categories from the articles; it is in no way "excellent" to remove factual information from articles. Please don't undo valid, factual, and constructive edits made to Wikipedia in the future -- it's counterproductive. --Wassermann 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, undoing edits, no matter how "valid, factual, and constructive", by banned individuals or their sockpuppets is Wikipedia policy, even superseding other policies like WP:3RR. Your edits did resemble Pionier's edits (rapid additions of Jewish categories to multiple biographical articles), and he is banned, so with only an IP address to go on it wasn't a huge leap. I note that you said you "will end all IP editing from this moment forward" earlier (see here), and if you had done that then this would not have happened. So, both 172.163.213.175 and 172.134.112.74 are your sockpuppet accounts, correct? If so the sockpuppet tags will need to be fixed. -- HiEv 08:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and furthermore, many articles where you added categories like "American Jew" do not include any reference which supports that description of the person's ethnicity or religion, thus the categories should be removed, especially from the biographies of living persons. You cannot simply assert "validity" or "factuality" without referencing reliable sources supporting the claim. -- HiEv 08:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Image:Gabe-birthday-part.jpg, ha, I beat ArielGold to it! — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's your birthday?? Happy Birthday! --Fang Aili talk 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Happy Birthday, My Dearest Lord, may your day be full of joy, and love.
Ariel♥Gold

Please check your email in a bit, my dear. Ariel♥Gold 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And... Bonk! You've got mail, my Lord. Ariel♥Gold 20:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Redirects

Was there anything you specifically wanted me to see in WP:R? The redirects I am using are for dab pages per MOS:DAB#Piping. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

WP:HOTTIE

They want to delete it! :( Oh man, sorry that I missed your birthday, buddy. Hope it was great! GlassCobra 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you any objection to...

Hi, do you have any objection to your Belgariad book cover images being replaced by the UK versions? They are much higher quality. See [2] vs [3] for instance. Exxolon 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Including both versions would be more in keeping with the goals of including information on them. I'll have a bash at sourcing/uploading UK images probably in next day or so then we'll see how we can format it all. As an aside, why are USA book covers in this field so rubbish by comparison?? :) Exxolon 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an editor

Hi Dreadstar. Looks as if this editor 97.81.19.3 does nothing but vandalize articles. Would a block be in order? Hope you had a wonderful birthday, and thanks for very funny note on my user talk page. You will of course be reported to the Ministry of Silly Walks for unbridled silliness.(olive 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)) Apologies if I have gone about this in the wrong way and added an unnecessary request to your list of admin.things to do. I will warn the editor and then see what happens-maybe more appropriate to approach Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Many thanks.(olive 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Ok. See it. Great. Thanks. Usual punishment for silliness, crucifixion (first door on the left) will be waived. Yikes.Hope that's not offensive.(olive 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Approval

Could you please approve JJBot? Thanks. Dreamy § 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion "Dogsoc" as patent nonsense

Do dogs need socks?
Do dogs need socks?
My feet are cold!
My feet are cold!

Hi Dreadstar Could you please rehabilitate the "Dogsoc" article you deleted to some private talk space so that we can work with it and convert it to brilliant prose and all the other stuff. Would appreciate a little room / time to work on this one - since it is not patent nonsense although it may appear so at first blush. Dogsoc 03:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


I will reply for Dreadstar, and he can respond if he needs to. Let me first explain the concept of verifiability, which is a core pillar of Wikipedia. Another thing is notability, which basically means that you can create an acronym about something, but that does not make it automatically notable. Without citations to reliable, third-party sources (such as news articles, professional journal articles, magazine articles, etc.,), then articles are likely to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and, additionally, I would like to point you to the conflict of interest guideline, because your username is the same as the title of the article. The COI guideline explains that editors should not create or edit articles about themselves, their company, organization, product, or family or friends, as they would likely be unable to edit neutrally. Neutrality is another of Wikipedia's core policies. I'd encourage you to review the policies and guidelines given here, and once you have, consider if indeed, the article you submitted was verifiable by multiple reliable sources, and displayed notability. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold
Thanks Ariel, better get some foot warmers for that poor doggie! Dreadstar † 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Dogsoc, the article consisted of an acronym and six sentences describing what the acronym meant, none of which was verifiable per WP:Verifiability, and which miserably failed Wikipedia:Notability. The only claim to verifiability was a presumed "xerox copy" of an "underground magazine" published in 1976 purportedly recently acquired and alleged to be undergoing the "process of being translated and scanned." The contents of the article, although short, were quite inflammatory, making unfounded accusations against governmental "regulatory assassins", etc. All in all, it added up to, quite frankly, patent nonsense with no meaningful content. Dreadstar † 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar, Wiki has many articles devoted to acronyms (such as United Nations, United States of America). Referring to the recently acquired document, there is now a stay order of the concerned High Court on publication of this document. We can *Now* cite the judgement's link on an OFFICIAL Govt. High Court website (which ought to meet reputable source /verificability criteria). For DOGSOC notability a simple google (is this verifiable?) news search on "Nandigram" should do. Finally I may mention Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy which is absolutely non-negotiable. Dogsoc 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Dogsoc, you do not seem to have read the links provided to you. You say "DOGSOC" is on Google, but here is the Google search result for DOGSOC [4] with a total of one article from 1910, not related to this article you are claiming is notable. The words you said it stands for, "Dismantling our Governments Selling our Cities", a Google search comes up with again, nothing: [5] None of this has anything to do with POV, it has to do with, again, verifiability and reliable, third-party sources that establish the notability. Yes, USA, UN, and many, many other acronyms have pages here, but they are notable, mentioned in the news, media, and other reliable sources. This acronym is not. Further, you may wish to review the single purpose account guide as well. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Docsoc, as Ariel said above, there are no google results, I always do a search prior to deleting articles, Wikipedia articles are not deleted without investigation. Provide three, verifiable third-party reliable sources, and I'll look into restoring the article. Dreadstar † 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar /Arielgold, Obviously imperialist Yankee Captain Kirks cannot understand simple English or establish contact with alien cultures. I did not ask you to search for "Dogsoc", I asked you to search for "Nandigram" in Google News (I do hope that you can cut and paste). A High Court of India (which incidentally under India's Constitution is more powerful than even the Supreme Court of India) has stayed (ie. banned) publication of the concerned scanned document which is the "little red book" of this particular jihad (I suspect you know what this word means - as in a "Butlerian jihad") in Nandigram. Unfortunately I cannot give you 3 official citations - just 1 from the High Court OFFICIAL website which clearly refers to "DOGSOC" as "Dismantling Govts Selling Out Citizens (oops) etc" You will have to move fast since unlike Judgements of the Supreme Court of India which are archived permanently on the internet, High Court Orders are required by law only to be given to affected persons, and are only online for 15 days and must thereafter be accessed by formal application with copying fees to the concerned Court. BTW: We dont have a sense of humour - in our culture dogs are for eating - so why waste those cute little socks on them? The deleted External link on the first post of the original article is burning up with posts cursing imperialist running dog actions and the 3 top "regulatory assassins" (use google without quotes) and/or "corporate assassins" of India vow to wreak vengeance upon Wikipedia Dogsoc 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ledwith

Can you tell me why an official report commissioned by the Irish Government and written by a retired Supreme Court of Ireland judge which investigates the history of sexual abuse by members of the clergy in Ireland and which references directly the person the article is written about is not a reliable source?r011in 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be if you had a reliable source for it. I've explained it in further detail on the article's talk page. Address the issue there. Dreadstar † 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm putting this in the right place as it's now archived, but can you revisit the Ledwith issue please? I've added the actual recording of the "whistleblower" as a source. Does this make my case any stronger? Thanks.r011in (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

Thankspam

Thank you...

Link

I tried sending you a link to a site I thought you'd like, but I get a message that:

The following message was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'SC-004 Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. A block has been placed against your IP address because we have received complaints concerning mail coming from that IP address. If you are not an email/network admin please contact your E-mail/Internet Service Provider for help. Email/network admins, we recommend enrolling in our Junk E-Mail Reporting Program (JMRP), a free program intended to help senders remove unwanted recipients from their e-mail list: http://postmaster.live.com'

That seems to be going around lately, Adam Cuerden recently tried to block me for a whole week for nothing. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC

ping me. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you! :) Did you finish the stuff you had to do? Ariel♥Gold 00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to my userpage

Thanks for alerting me, and thanks for trying to undo the vandalism. I don't know why, but lately I seem to be attracting more wierdos than usual. There must be something cosmic going on. Cheers -- JackofOz 11:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

UEFA records protection

Not that one again. He would appear to be referring to me, but perhaps does not understand that I protected m:The Wrong Version (and he's not the only one). No doubt the same edit war by the same editors is going on at UEFA Cup, UEFA Cup finals and European football records too. I'm reluctant to revisit that dispute, but I guess I'll have to... Oldelpaso 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right that some summarising should have been done on the other pages. Thanks for your input. -- Oldelpaso (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I need tons of help

It looks ike you have everything that anyone could have this is all i know how to do Please help Me as best you can You can do anything to my website as long as it is not bad or offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxmysoxo (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clown

Hi. I was just going to let you know that the range blocks just expired and, as you have seen, we suddenly get a onslaught. I see that you have protected, but just to let you know that I have reblocked the ranges for 1 month (we did seem to still get vandalism in the last week, but much reduced and I guess we should always expect some on such a likely target article). Cheers TigerShark 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but it might be interesting to see if this PeeWee vandal is coming from those ranges, because this edit did and this one didn't. I would say let's try it and see, what do you think? Cheers TigerShark 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure is! I'm fascinated to see how it goes. Thanks again TigerShark 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Clown hater

I'm seeing what else we can do about this clown hater. Dreadstar † 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully a range block. Is this our "protection bet" guy? I'm not sure. -- Gscshoyru (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dreadstar. Thanks for the note. Yes I think the protection is a good call, although it is a shame that this vandal seems to be getting what he wants (i.e. getting the article protected). Just to let you know that the two ranges I blocked are 198.189.140.0/24 and 209.129.173.0/24 (both California State University). Blocking these for a week previously seemed to do this trick to block the PeeWee socks, but obviously is not working now. I noticed that there is somebody else making similar edits (with PeeWee summaries) from a geographically distant dynamic range which includes the address 64.142.83.231. I think that a check user may be warranted on these socks to see if we are dealing with more than one person and to see if IP blocks can help. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have started putting together an initial contributions list here, feel free to add to it. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted the request here. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

I would like to bring attention that at the Nicole (Dead or Alive) page, there is a picture of Master Chief from the Halo series. This is not the right picture. Can you please change the picture?

Thanks Patrolman89 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my error, there is nothing wrong with it. Patrolman89 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you watchlist??

Hey, would you mind watchlisting Arabian horse for a week or so, if you watchlist possible trouble spots? Just to fend off trouble before it starts?? There were a number of POV edits by User:Seblini that I reverted, and then was promptly reverted myself by an anon IP, 68.42.94.190, who was probably the same individual. Another editor fixed it, but I'd like to have some admin eyes over there just in case there is trouble or a need for warnings. If you compare the diffs here, it is obvious why these edits were not helpful (added peacock words, removed some sourced material), and looking over the individual's user page, the POV angle becomes apparent. (I've made a couple minor edits since this diff, just FYI) Anyway, having survived my edit war month from hell in Sept-Oct, I am not in the mood to deal with yet another person who wants to trash an article that has Good Article status, but I know that I am too close to the article to be fully objective and would greatly appreciate some neutral eyes on it for a bit. (Yes, this is my favorite article, yes I am lead editor, Yes, I got it GA status, yes I am rather protective. Guilty as charged! (grin) and can I give you five more footnotes from authoritative sources to prove it??) (Friends help me keep my sense of humor) Hopefully, this individual is done causing trouble, but just in case, Thanks muchly in advance! Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE violation

I note that you have two reverts to identical versions of the article in question in a very short period of time as well.Kww (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have made three reverts to the article per WP:3RR, [6] [7] [8]. One more and you will be blocked. I find this edit to be a personal attack. It's unjustified and unwarranted. I recommend you retract it. Dreadstar † 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the above as an attack. I'm sorry if you do. There are three separate sets of changes going on, but I have not been reverting the same material or to the same version at any time ... I've allowed other editors changes to stay, and sought stable versions of individual paragraphs. One controversy had to do with the quote about stones. Eleland made a wording change. You reverted it. I restored it. TimidGuy deleted both versions. I then found the direct quote that TimidGuy couldn't find, and inserted the direct quote in place of the summary. That seems to have made everyone happy. That section now seems to be stable.
I deleted the word "fictional". You reverted. I took it back out. You reverted. I submitted "narrative" as an alternative. That hasn't been fiddled with since.
I did revert back in the change by Michaelbusch, because it is a better lead.
The article just popped back on the radar screen due to the original change by Eleland this morning. I'd like to put the original "consensus" lead sentence back in, just so the lead isn't left with no criticism at all.Kww (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You said "I have not been reverting the same material or to the same version at any time", let me refer you to WP:3RR which states:
'An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."
You violated 3RR, if I weren't involved in the dispute, I'd have blocked you myself. As it is , I've reported you. Dreadstar † 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!? and Transcendental Meditation

I apologize for asking this, but I've had serious problems with it before while editing in these areas, and want to make quite sure that the issue isn't larger than before, since I haven't collaborated with you before. You aren't employed by any organization related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, especially the Maharishi University of Management, are you? Again, it really doesn't seem as though you are, but I would like to be certain of the matter. --Philosophus T 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not connected to any of those organizations in any way, and have no vested interest in or connection with TM or the Bleep movie. No COI here. I just want to make sure the subjects are fairly represented according to Wikipedia policy. Thanks for asking, it was a fair question. Dreadstar † 03:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Holiday

Have a Happy Thanksgiving! --Fang Aili talk 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham pub bombings

Could you please Fully protect this article as it is the center of the mediation that I am working on, and it is constantly being altered, against the mediation. Thanks in advance. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I should have checked the template at the top of the page! <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you words of support

One of my favorite places Dear Dreadstar,

Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy tag

I don't under why the tag {{policycontroversy}} is not appropriate for a policy page. It's hard to argue that the section isn't controversial. The template is made for policy pages (even explicitly named as such). Vassyana (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a redirect, granted. :) But the tag is explicitly for the purpose of marking controversial policy. Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right. I pretty much had taken your advice without reading it ... that is, I walked away from that and put some solid proposals on the table to try and move forward. :o) Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

unblocking

Thanks! By the way, how have things been going at NOR? I have been away, and frankly too tired to keep contributing to thaty debate (and, I think I said all I have to say). I see Slim Voirgin made a comment a few weeks ago - her thoughts are always well-thought out and reflect solid experience. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

F-bomb

I apologize - suffice it to say that I find the attempt to untag the dispute to be in deeply poor form. When we have a dispute we should call attention to it and solicit viewpoints, which is what the tag does. Sweeping it under the rug is inappropriate, and casts an unfortunate chill over the entire discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Pee Wee Vandal

I just nominated him for arbitration. If you want, you can add your name to the initiating party, and state your comment. He needs to stop NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is the wrong place to deal with this. This is a vandal/sockpuppet issue, simply revert, report to get it blocked, and tag. I suggest you remove the arbcom request, this editor is not going to be unblocked to allow them to participate, and arbitration is not used for this kind of thing. Goodshoped35110s, I suggest strongly that you review the Arbitration policy carefully, as well as the dispute resolution process, so you understand a bit more. Ariel♥Gold 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
RFCU to block his underlying IPs would be a better path. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ledwith

Hi again, I may have wrongly edited this on your archive page, sorry. Can you revisit the Michael Ledwith issue please? I've added the actual recording of the "whistleblower" as a source. Does this make my case any stronger? Thanks.r011in (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Lord, our soul sang with joy to hear from thee! We hope that thou hath been keeping thyself well, and that thou soonst have some time free to join in the fun herewith, and in other realms. You know that without Lord Dreadstar, we are less than complete, and we look forward to thine return with eager anticipation. May thine travels keep thee safe! Lady♥Ariel 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Information

Could you take all of what was written here, here, here, and here, and put them here? That would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance! <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are amazingly fast! Thank you so much! <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here you go:
The Working Man's Barnstar
You work so hard to help me out! I hope that I can count on your support on April 8th! <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR

NO policy should ever have a disputed tag. Disputed edits ought to be removed to the talk section for discussion until there is no dispute!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks Slr! Dreadstar † 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR revert

I think you probably meant this section as to the discussion and consensus WT:NOR#Revisiting a proposal instead of the one you cited in the revert. At least, this is the one that clearly gave Vassyana consensus to make the changes, which have been reverted over and over by those not participating in the discussion. wbfergus Talk 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh. The discussion gets so spread out, and the wording disputes seem to cover many different areas, it's hard to tell what's exactly what. Thanks for pointing that out so we can clarify who stands where. I do like Vassyana's version 002, but I think it may have been a bit early to implement it...and Slim's response seems to agree...but I think we may be close. Sorry meet you under such circumstances...but it's nice to meet you! Dreadstar † 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the discussions happen so fast and so often there, it's easy to lose one (or more). I'm pretty sure the one I cited above is where Vassyana got the impressions he had clear consensus to make the changes he did, all in good faith, and then usually within minutes his changes were reverted by those who didn't participate in the discussion, hence his final 'fuck it' comment. If people would read the entire talk page and check the history, then mistakes like this wouldn't occur as often, and diligent, hard-working people like Vassyana wouldn't get an 'attitude' about those who don't check, just perform knee-jerk reverts. It's also overcomplicated by different discussions about the (apparently) same subject. I think we've probably 'met' before on some MILHIST articles, your handle was familar to me from something before you started participating in the NOR discussions. wbfergus Talk 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just got involved in the NOR 'discussions' around June or July (maybe August, it just seems forever), and they were already going heavy then. Since then around 40-50 (guesstimate) people have been on the side of some sort of change, with a smaller minority (about 10-15 total in the time span, another guesstimate) opposed to any change. Of these, it's hard telling who's an Admin and who just writes like they have power of an Admin. One of these days I'll need to find the Wiki page again that shows who is an Admin. Of those opposed, who 'appear' to be Admins (whether they've reverted or not, I'll have check the edit history) would be jossi, SlimVirgin, Kenosis, Philip Baird Shearer, Crum375, and FeloniousMonk. There's a smaller group of others who don't appear to be Admins who are opposed to any change as well, Jimsch and Orangemarlin to name a couple I remember right off the top of my head, probably a few more. Then it gets complicated by those who seem fairly level-headed, and take both sides depending on the current 'issue', Slrubenstein, Avb, Vassyana, Blueboar, and yourself among others. Then there's the other group, which seems to be the opposite of the first group above, not Admins and wanting major changes, which Cogden usually appears to be in. I think most people are in the 'level-headed' group, which seem to fluctuate around 10-15 people at a time, depending upon the 'issue'. At times, when polls were taken for various 'issues' it seemed like about 4 or 5 would object, with around 10-15 in favor, but the objectors were Admins so those in favor couldn't do anything.
That's quite a few more than who were participating in the policy when evidently a lot of changes were being made to the policy, only a few people were active on the policy page and the talk page, and there was no discussion or other announcements anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find. (Oct. 2006, diffs). I think these changes are what most of the current 'discussions' are mainly about. Looking at who was involved then, and who has been performing a lot of the reverts now, and you can probably see how some people can sense article/policy ownership by certain parties. wbfergus Talk 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The paper was published

Hi, Dreadstar. I saw you nice comment on Naturezak's talk page. I just wanted to clarify that the paper was indeed published in Current Hypertension Reports. Naturezak's point is that this publication isn't peer reviewed. He may be right, but he hasn't said how he knows this. Anyway, at this point the material that was deleted probably wasn't necessary to the article. If at a later point I feel it is, I'll take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hellenistic art

I think those three IP vandals might be the same person. Are you able to block them yourself, or does it need to go through AIV? I know that 137.89.228.215 (talk · contribs) has received a final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN RFC

Added the following comments to the RFC talk page. Would it be possible to address them? Thanks.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations regarding sourcing of LDS article editsThe RFC description section currently contains the following statements:
The trigger for this seems to have been his editing of pages related to the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), an area he works in a lot. While his work on these articles is appreciated, his attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate has become problematic.
However, evidence in support of these claims appears not to have been provided. The diffs provided are based on edits to WP:NOR and its talk page. Would it be possible to provide specific diffs identifying edits to LDS articles that are perceived as inappropriate to support the above claims? These claims strike me as particularly strong, and particularly relevant to the allegation that User:COGDEN's edits and discussions were not based on good faith, yet there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence provided. I do not believe it is appropriate to make such allegations without providing specific supporting evidence. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent question. I collected a huge number of diffs and tried to provide the key ones that showed the problematic behavior, but I should have included the diffs that gave the LDS history. I was actuallly working on that when you made your request, and I've posted the evidence here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/COGDEN#No bad faith. Let me know if this answers your questions! Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR

NO policy should ever have a disputed tag. Disputed edits ought to be removed to the talk section for discussion until there is no dispute!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks Slr! Dreadstar † 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dgxf

I reported him because a duck test reveals that he is a sock of Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who was banned by ArbCom for tendentious editing on the Anaheim Hills page. It was originally for a year, but it was extended to indef. Per WP:BAN, he has no right to even edit, and can be blocked on sight. Blueboy96 05:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... he created the Anaheim Hills, California, (Anaheim) article as well--as I understand it, it can be speedied per G5. Blueboy96 05:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem--where am I supposed to report it, though? Was wondering because there are several LTA pages which tell us to report socks to AIV as soon as it's obvious who they are (JB196 and SummerThunder immediately come to mind). Blueboy96 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here ya go ... JB196, SummerThunder and Verdict. Blueboy96 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in

Hey Dreadstar. Just wanted to check in after all the comments etc. on the RfC and ArbCom thing to say that don't take anything personal. As with all Wikipedians, we all have our personal opinions (though some are more opininated than others), and my comments are meant to be general in nature, not specifically targeted towards any one person (I don't know how some of my comments may come across, but I know I usually get an official 'slap on the wrist' at work when I voice my opinion, but it's always been for not being PC or tactful, nobody has yet to criticize my (work) comments as being technically incorrect). So anyway, if any of my comments seem to cross the line, please take them with a grain a salt. I'm just one of many 'regular' users who feel excluded and ignored from what has basically been a battle between Admins, since the page is protected and has been for so long. Since we can't do anything other than talk, we really get the sense of being ignored, and sometimes may let emotions take control to try and make a point in the hope that maybe it would get addressed. Later. wbfergus Talk 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankee!

Much thanks, Dread One! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrol request

Hey Dreadstar, you are an admin noted for your diplomatic skills and level-headedness. Anyway, with that blatent job of sucking up, would you assist in heading off an edit war before it starts? See Gelding and the diffs here Short version is that an IP is putting a warning at the beginning of the article about a mildly (IMHO) gross photo of an open castration that appears quite a ways down the page. It think it unnecessary and feel the disclaimer should be reverted. But, I also don't want to start a flame war -- again -- on the topic. There was a long discussion of the issue on the talk page, (Dlh Stablelights -- who did a TON of work on the article -- and JoelMills, who helped, are both Real life veterinarians, by the way) but the discussion died several months ago with the consensus to keep the image. Now it's cranking up again, and it really doesn't need to, IMHO, but I also know that my attempts to calm people down sometimes wind up escalating them instead! I did comment that the image is far less disturbing than, say, the one in penis or one in the gallery at the bottom of the testicle article. So HELP! Montanabw(talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should take out one of the castration images from gelding and add it to the veterinary medicine section of castration? LOL! Montanabw(talk) 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of authenticity! NPOV and all that! Montanabw(talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ack! Just don't ask me to look..! <Dreadstar covers his eyes>. Dreadstar † 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You appear not to have actually read the text of some sections of that article, either, have you? (grin) Well, if it's that scary, maybe I won't. But I'll hold it in reserve as an option if things get too slow! Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit to WTB

You are absolutely, 100% aware that there is no consensus for your edit to WTB with the "a number of scientists believe" wording. I have made it extremely clear to you that that wording is unacceptable to me. Why are you free to edit against consensus but have me blocked for trivial edits? Stop editing until consensus is reached, please.Kww (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very skewed view of what's been happening. Dreadstar † 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I was blocked for finding an exact quote to back up a summarization that you reverted twice (after it was inserted by two different editors), and for replacing "fictional" with "narrative", on the grounds that it was a controversial article and I should have all changes pre-approved, and that reverting your reversions was edit-warring. You inserted a line that I specifically said was unacceptable, and I am saying again is unacceptable. Yes, I find this extremely frustrating, especially since I know the moment I touch the article again I will suffer bad consequences. I truly don't understand why a consensus between you and TimidGuy is a consensus despite others strenuous and continuous objections.Kww (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this, you were revert-warring and your statements indicated to me that you were going to continue revert-warring. The blocking admin and the admin who denied your unblock request both agreed with that assessment. Your assertions are way off-base, and misrepresent virtually everything. I suggest you move on. Dreadstar † 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What the Bleep

Are you pushing to have the article protected again? Stop the revert warring. There is no scientific consensus for the movie. Period. Dreadstar † 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not revert warring - I have reverted the article once since it was unlocked. Dreadstar, you statements refusing to accept the existence of the consensus on What the Bleep have approached the point where I feel justified in invoking don't be dense. I have explained the sources and how they reflect consensus and the non-existence of any contrary statements three times, as have others. If you do not accept the consensus, that is your concern. Refusing to acknowledge its existence is folly. If the overview statements of the views of two hundred thousand scientists against the film while none have expressed support are insufficient for you to accept consensus, that seems to constitute being dense. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're engaging in a revert war over that wording, the wording was added, it was then reverted and taken again to the talk page, and yet still reverted back into the article once again without consensus - that is revert warring. As far scientific consensus, yes I'm sure if the scientific community were polled on this movie there were would indeed be the consensus that some of the aspects of the movie are pseudoscience...but this polling hasn't been done for this movie, there are no sources for it, and so it violates WP:NOR. There are no two ways about it. And please watch who you're calling dense. First, it cuts both ways, and is also an unnecessary, uncivil personal attack. Dreadstar † 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And now, you've continued your revert-warring by reverting the addition of a fact tag], which is compounded by your second edit summary that contains WP:CIV uncivil remarks. Not good behavior. Dreadstar † 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar, your continued density and refusal to accept the existence of consensus has caused me to lose patience. So, here is the last word: you will not falsely accuse me of edit-warring, you will not make the mistake of thinking I am not aware of every sentence of WP:3RR, and you will not make nonsensical edits to the article. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. And I've done none of those things and wouldn't do so in any case. So, I guess we're on the same page? Dreadstar † 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And you need to recalculate your reversions, you have three reverts in 24 hours, [9], [10], [11]. The first diff is a revert back to when the lead said scientific consensus, so you reverted back to that. Dreadstar † 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you use that first one in a 3RR report, please clearly label and justify it. I have a hard time seeing that changing to a different sentence that includes the same phrase as a version from 4 months ago constitutes a "revert", and I suspect that a lot of other editors would share my difficulty. Some might even question the motives of someone that would use it in a report.Kww (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Revert, "However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.", so yes, re-adding the same disputed wording, even if it's in a different sentence, ("A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time]") is indeed a revert. I've been burned by that myself - been there done that. Dreadstar † 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Help again

Could you please delete this page, and move this page to it, but keep the first one's name? Thanks, <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! You are amazing! <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If I had the mop the ladies would love me! Pat sulks in the corner ScarianTalk 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, --Elonka 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've remained civil to you

I'm sorry if you think that I have violated WP:CIVIL. I assumed that you must have skimmed my comment to have misinterpreted it so.Kww (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When somebody says "Please read again, slowly", it's not the best way to say, perhaps you misunderstood what I meant, can you review my statement again..? I know, fuses are short and frustration has been well set in, so things like this happen...but then, it's times like these we need to be on high alert about the potential impact of our own statements...and I've felt under attack by you, so that post just seemed to be another. Let's both try to be more careful! Dreadstar † 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

the used

on 12/4 you deleted a page on the used 4th album that another user created becasue you said youtube wasnt a reliable source, since then the album has been announed on their official site and myspace, would it be ok to create the page now?...i orginally thought a diff user deleted it but after talking to them i was directed to you, heres their link:[12] Usedfan1989 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's out and it's notable with reliable sources, then go for it! Dreadstar † 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It is worth noting to Usedfan yet again, that MySpace, and the ban's personal site/fan sites, are not reliable, third party sources. As I mentioned to them when they asked me, if the album is announced, the press would surely pick up on it, and sources will become available soon. Ariel♥Gold 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely, thank you, m'lady for thine most gracious response.. Dreadstar † 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
ok ill wait for some more sources because they are recording it jan-march, i just wanted to ask an administrator, thanks for the help. Usedfan1989 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea! Thanks for the great response! Dreadstar † 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have a question about your block on this IP. I'm new, so I am trying to understand the reason for a 6 month block on what looks to be a dynamic IP. I blocked the same user for the same vandalism [13] a half hour later so he looks to be a roving vandal. Does this user look to be an owner of a static range that should be range blocked? On the surface 6 months looks unnecessary to me. --NrDg 17:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was an unusual circumstance, I wouldn't generally block one for that long the first time around. The report and the history indicated a multi-month troll who was vandalizing and [14] other users, and I received a request for a longer block on this IP, so I complied. I've tweaked the block to allow for account creation and shortened it by half. We may have to do a range block or semi-protect pages, we'll have to keep an eye out and see how it goes...thanks for the question and letting me know about the follow-up vandalism from the same user. Dreadstar † 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


The royal "We"

Don't you know, "we" is the term that is only used by royalty? This must certainly, therefore, be a person of royal heritage, and thus we should not "deign" to remove the comments, yes?

I crack myself up... Ariel♥Gold 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We are well aware of the Royal We. Henceforths, ye shall call me by mine rightful name...Lord Dreadstar, master of my domain...I was also thinking of them being the 'toddler' wee...wee wee wee, all the way home...;) You crack me up too...:-D Dreadstar † 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We curtsy to your Royal Highness, M'Lord, and we just must say your ascot is most fetching! We are exceedingly pleased. I therefore, hereby award you the title of "Lord Dreadstar, Master of my domain, Earl of Fashion. And should you need any assistance, at any time, we would be most honored if we could assist you. Lady♥Ariel 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Lady Ariel is most pleased with your approval! Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thou art most gracious, M'Lady Ariel. I most happily accept the title thou hast bestowed upon my humble self. Thine heart is truly placed in the most appropriate position, at the very core of thine name, for all to behold! Mine ascot is most pleased to have been the focus of your divine attention, and mine sword is most jealous...!
I am yours to command, shouldest thou have need of mine prowess with the edit summary of justice...! - Lord Dreadstar, Master of My Doman and Earl of Fashion 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, lol, I just have to get out of the whole "in voice" thing for a second to just tell you that I rarely truly laugh in RL when reading anything online, or watching TV or what have you, but honestly, your last reply made me literally and figuratively, laugh out loud.
I simply could not be more amused! And seriously, I meant it, although I doubt there's anything you'd ever need silly little insignificant me for, I'm more than happy to assist in any way you need, and I'll certainly take you up on your offer of assistance should I ever run into a wall that is only permeable by the Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. Your most humble servant, Lady♥Ariel 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Why thank you, Ariel♥Gold! That is one of the finest compliments I've received..it made me laugh out loud with delight! It's actually kinda rare that I can use my sense of humor on Wikipedia, in RL I'm known for my prowess with the dagger of delight and the lance of laughter...;) Methinks I have the comedian bug.
I must admit that most of mine "thee's and thou's" are from The Mighty Thor- god of thunder, and Sir Mandorallan- the mightiest knight on life! And thou certainly are not silly nor insignificant, my sweet golden one..thou art a pleasure to hammer-down the vandals with!
Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
.......(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!).....
Thou doth maketh Ariel Laugheth! Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
....I'm not saying I'd like to build a summer home here, but the trees are actually quite lovely.

Civility

This comment is uncivil, please moderate your remarks and be more cautious in the future. Dreadstar † 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Repeatedly deleting sourced material with false accusation of WP:BLP violations is uncivil. I look forward to seeing your warnings placed appropriately. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Zhuhai Airport and Pondok Cabe Airport

Hi there. I've noticed you've disabled editing for Surabaya Airport and other Indonesian airport articles due to vandalism by a known hoaxer. Can you please also extend this ban to Zhuhai Airport and Pondok Cabe Airport articles because this user has vandalised these pages lately using an anonymous IP address. Cheers

Thanks for your expediate blocking of Zhuhai Airport. Are you able to unblock that article, revert the vandalism made by 125.164.164.91 and block it again? That guy seems to have snuck in a quick edit before the ban. Thanks so much!

Crossings of the River Severn

I've re-applied User:Severnbore's edit to that article.

The old link (which has been there for a long time) takes you to a redirect page, which points you to the new link, so this was a simple housekeeping task to point the link correctly.

Mayalld (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If the link is suitable, and meets WP:EL, that's fine. Severnbore's edits were reverted because he was spamming numerous articles in a systematic fashion. Dreadstar † 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Reverts

The reverts are self-explanatory.

All vandalism is. Dreadstar † 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The person you just blocked (I was watching :-) is back as 71.147.19.102 and playing hos old tricks. Triwbe (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sons of Maxwell

Not sure why you felt the need to add your two cents, but I'm quite aware of Wikipedia policy, and I do not flirt with it lightly. I can cite in reply that the parties involved in the speedy were being dicks, but I'm sure that we all, including myself, will have forgotten about this by tomorrow. Chubbles (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This little remark is why I "felt the need". I suggest you "flirt" a little more civilly in the future, the behavior of others is no excuse for uncivil remarks or personal attacks. Dreadstar † 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, water under the bridge. At the end of the day, every edit I made was constructive to the project, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that an article which merited inclusion was kept from deletion solely due to my intervention. You're welcome to pursue the matter further, but it seems to serve no purpose. Chubbles (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Syrians and Arabians

The merge was probably the most elegant solution, simpler than deletion. Will review your addition to Arabian horse (yes, you probably did put it in the wrong place, but that's OK, I will fix. <grin>) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Did the edit with my usual diplomatic and ego-soothing edit summary, hope no offense. There actually wasn't anything in the Syrian article worth keeping (which was why I proposed it for deletion). Basically, Syrian horses ARE Arabians, they just didn't have official recognition (due to politics as much as anything, it took a good 20 years for WAHO to accept Russian-bred Arabians back in the 'day). Also, the text of the Syrian article basically just was trying to make a breed characteristic out of the fact that the old-style desert raised and bred Arabians don't look as fancy schmancy as the westernized show ring variety, they are usually plainer and smaller (if you are curious, compare Syrian desertbreds to American champion with his own web site You don't have to be a horse person to figure that one out!), but like a lot of dog breeds, it's the old working stock that revitalizes the genetic stock! it is doubly ironic that the Syrians had such a hard time getting their stud book approved, as a significant segment of American Arabians originally came from Syria, see Homer Davenport#Arabian horse breeder -- I would comment that the Syrians have not improved on what they bred 100 years ago... but, Oh, sorry, I'm going on and on here. Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging a place for experts. I WAS feeling a bit put out by VanTucky. Sniff...sniffle... (blowing nose loudly). Not that I am precisely an expert, but I know where they can be found (all 100 footnotes worth)! If I may add to the sucking up column, you are gracious as well and even patient with the anal-retentive ravings of someone who is slightly mad on a topic that a lot of people probably don't really give a rat's tail about. Montanabw(talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Bleep:RfC

Hi! The position that I understand you to be taking in this discussion strikes me as so bizarre that I feel I might be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that you don't believe a factual science book to be an appropriate source on a question of scientific fact?
Have a good one! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, not at all. I'm saying that in order for content to be included in an article, the source used must be in relation to the topic of the article, per WP:NOR. the sources ScienceApologist wants to use have nothing to do with the topic of the article..which is the movie. The articles on the sciences or fringe sciences that ScienceApologist is concerned about can contain content from the sources he wants to use because they are directly related to the subjects of those articles. Hope this clears things up! Dreadstar † 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note

Considering a former username, this user may become confused with you. Just thought you may wish to be aware. (And you may find the contributions history timestamps interesting.) - jc37 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks..that's wild...and the timestamps are definitely very, very interesting... I appreciate the head's up! Dreadstar † 01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you would. Keeping an eye on this user may be a good idea (based on contribution history as noted already). Hopefully, nothing untoward will occur : ) - jc37 01:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Graphite

Please review the changes I have made. This is not vandalism. I have highlighted that the images do not show any idea of scale. This is bad practice. It can not be seen what size the images are, for example are they 1 mm across or 1 m across. Giving an idea of scale, such as a scale bar, is a fundamental requirement for scientific images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.127.216 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

==PLEASE EXPLAIN== Why have you stalked my edits, all of which are benefical and legitimate, and then reverted them. Also why did you block further edits? I have made usefulk additions to Wikipedia. What is going on?

I've explained it on your original IP address' talk page. Dreadstar † 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin abuse

  • I am disgusted by your actions. I made legimate and valid changes to a number of article only for you to stalk these changes and revert them. You clearly have no knowledge of geology, mineralogy or even basic scientific principles. It basic level practice that images are accompanied with an indication of scale, such as a scale bar. Without this information it is unknown if the object that is shown is, say 1 mm across or 10 m.
  • Your reaction to my correcting your inappropriate reverts is to threaten me! This is far from helpful, and completely at odds to what Wikipedia claims to be. This is even worse considering that you are an administrator.
  • You then accused me of being a sock puppet. This is wrong. A sock puppet, as you should surely know, is someone who tries to hid their identity. This is obviously wrong as although I posted from another IP address I acknowledged I was the same person.
  • In the future please use you "powers" more responsibly. Otherwise you will drive away knowledgable editors, who are volunteering and giving freely of their own time and knowledge. Your actions risk damaging Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.71.216 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Further abuse

I have tried to discuss my edits and your actions, and yet not only do you ignore my comments but you delete them from discussion pages. Please try to to behave like an administrator.

Um, let's see. A sockpuppet is someone who evades bans, or uses one or more accounts abusively. —BoL 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, let's see. "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community." The source of this? It's Wikipedia ... as I noted to Dreadstar before you butted in "I acknowledged I was the same person." ergo I am not a sockpuppet.
Are you sure? You know, the only way you can't be counted as a sock is if you're using dynamic IPs. You know, resetting your modem by using the power cord, in my opinion, doesn't sound right. And as for Dreadstar, he's a good admin, not abusing his powers. —BoL 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you BoL! That's a nice compliment! Dreadstar † 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I sure about what? Being a sockpuppet? By Wikipedia's own definition I am not. I will defer to you about Dreadstar personality, however in this case he has been out of line. He has been trigger happy. He neither tried to understand the reason for my edits nor attempted discussion. He simply immediately fired off a "final warning." I tried to discuss this with him on these pages, and rather than join in he just blocked me. And as for resetting modems, well you are entitled to your opinion about what doesn't sound right, but what I do not think sounds right; no make that what is not right is an admin who so quickly blocks editors, reverts legitimate edits and does not engage in discussion. Admins should remember that Wikipedia is nothing without volunteers. These people contribute their knowledge, and all free of charge - if they are treated as I have recently been the result will be they will not contribute, and consequently Wikipedia dies. Is it any wonder that Wikipedia is held in such low regard in academic circles?
Each IP address is effectively a different account, and since you are using different accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Blocking Policy}, your multiple IP accounts definitely fall under Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, "A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden." You are a vandal who is evading being blocked by use of alternate accounts, ergo you are a puppetmaster of multiple socks. Dreadstar † 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
er ... (1) "using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll" I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not used an usernames and I have never voted in any poll., (2) I can not be a vandal as I have not vandalised anything. I may have added content which you, or someone else, did not agree. This is not vandalism. The correct reponse is discussion and debate to achieve a conscensus, (3) Again I am not a sockpuppet or a puppetmaster. I have been fully open that I am the same person. By Wikipedia's defintion I am not a sockpuppet or puppermaster, you may wnat to use a different defintion but that is just your opinion and mudslinging ...hardly appropriate for an Administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.222.144 (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll now be reporting this entire list of IP addresses to BT Public Internet Service for abuse. Perhaps they will be able to reign you in. Dreadstar † 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done! You have just proved that as an Admin you do over step your position. What abuse is this? Have I broken any laws, made any threats, used any abusive language? No of course not. This has not been abuse. I have mearly dared to disagree with an Administrator. Do you really think that BT are interested in this. You really should remember that as an Admin you should be trying to improve Wikipedia, as I have been doing, and not massaging your ego. It really is rather pathetic,
Please stop harassing Dreadstar. He is doing his job as an admin to keep disruptive users off the project, ergo, not overstepping his bounds at all. Keilana(recall) 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Harrasing! I have tried o improve Wikipedia, only to be met with hassle from an Administrator. If you check the edits to which he mistakening took umbrage you will see there are quite legitimate. It is not my fault if, as an Admin, he is trigger fingered and uses his "powers" for his own reasons and not for the benefit of Wikipedia.
Seriously, stop. Stop replying on my talk page and stop harassing Dreadstar. Believe me, he's a good admin, and he never abuses his powers. Make one more edit here, or on my talk page, or on Keilana's talk page, I will report you. —BoL 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks BoL and Keilana! I've reported the entire list of ip addresses and times used to BT abuse. Dreadstar † 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, and he's back. He's after Keilana now. Not only that, PeeWee was back, but I had his IP blocked---Again! —BoL 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Good job! I saw that report on Peewee, quick action there! Yah, I saw the posts to Keilana...blocked that IP too. We may have to consider a short term range block until BT can take action. Dreadstar † 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
BoL, please don't revert comments on my talk page, I don't mind. It's part of the job. And I could care less as to who's "after" me. Keilana(recall) 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That's my girl! (I may have reverted on your page too, Keilana...sorry). Dreadstar † 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Same with me. —BoL 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And not only that, what about this [15] —BoL 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I prefer my "welcome mat to be free of random profanity." :) I seem to be angering a lot of people today. Hm. Keilana(recall) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. If you're not, then you're not doing your job...;) Dreadstar † 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Assistance required in case of User:Smsarmad

Hi Dreadstar/Archive05, first of all thank you for halping me and banning that troll account (User:CHUzEE) and those anonymous IPs. But I think you still supported the master puppet account, User:Smsarmad. I would be happy if you would review this: Sockpuppets @ User Talk:UzEE. I have listed some evidence there. Thank you. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POLICY

I was in the middle of leaving a longer comment on the talk page; my edit summary was too brief. I wanted to say there was discussion, but no consensus or prior discussion, but I ran out of room. Sorry for the poor wording. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Quartz

Thanks so much for semi-protecting Quartz. :) Cheers, Warut (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thymine

Sorry; wrong IP after all - at the same time there was an IP repeatedly posting a phone-number in a different aritlce (I forget), so I must have got the wires crossed. Will (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)