User talk:Dreadstar/Archive06

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

Happy New Year !

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)



Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Leadership on "...Bleep..."

Hi Sir Dread...I really want to go on record as commending the leadership you once again gave the Bleep article.I believe that you were completely neutral, patient, tough if needed, but in a civil way. There is a fine line it seems to me between maintaining neutrality, and skepticism, and you I thought were very aware of were that line is/was.(olive (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Oh, why thank you so much Olive! What a nice message to start my new year off right..! And thank you for your helpful comments and support..that article is an amazingly hot button issue..especially for a film like that...! Dreadstar † 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution suggestions

Of the 4 replies you've made to me, 2 have referred me to dispute resolution. I need no reminder that there is a dispute resolution process. As you know, I've been involved in arbitrations before, meaning I've seen the gamut of dispute resolution. Your repeated reminders only serve to leave a bitter taste from our discussion. Dispute resolution is a last resort - what we turn to if things fail. Antelan talk 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

These reminders are due to what I perceive as a series of accusations that you have made against me. I'll ask you again to provide diffs for your latest accusation that I "hammered" SA for canvassing. Dreadstar † 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
First, my "latest" accusation is the same as my very first. Second, "hammering" was my description of your edits on his page. This is not an accusation, unless 'hammering' is a behavior that has actionable consequences on Wikipedia. Antelan talk 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, diffs please. "Hammering" is not a neutral statement, and can be construed as harassment. And you'll have to pardon me if I find statements like this to appear accusatory - hammering is just the latest example. Dreadstar † 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I named you directly on that talk page for invoking a WP policy that had an explicit disclaimer making it clear that it was not applicable to our specific situation. You incorrectly understood the policy. That either meant that you weren't aware of the relevant pieces of the policy, or you were aware and deliberately chose to ignore them. In my good faith, I assumed that you simply weren't aware. Antelan talk 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, as I said, you have made previous accusations against me. You may be correct in your assessment of the applicability of WP:SELFPUB in that circumstance, but your view hasn't been shown to be right. That I believed you were incorrect with your accusation was made clear in my response.
Unless you can provide diffs of my purported "hammering" of SA, I believe we've exhausted this particular issue. Dreadstar † 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

IP 90.210.11.47

Hey Dreadstar. I noticed you just blocked this IP for a month, but he hadn't vandalized since the last warning on his talk page (last contrib, at 21:24; last warning, at 21:25; block, at 21:49). I don't think the block was necessary, in any case, certainly not that long for a first block... · AndonicO Talk 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I found these two antisemitic hate messages [1] [2] to be egregious enough not only to block before final warring, but it also warranted a longer than normal block. Dreadstar † 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think the block should be shortened, I'm willing...but I believe the block itself was warranted. Dreadstar † 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say around a week would be better than a full month. It just seems to me that he stopped vandalizing with the last warning, so it shouldn't be too strict... · AndonicO Talk 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I completely agree, such hate messages should be treated with strictness, any hate speech of that nature should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I've shortened the block to a week, and I'll try to keep an eye on it after that time. Plus, I'm not as confident as you are that the user was going to truly stop vandalizing after the last warning. I wouldn't have blocked at all at that point had the user been doing only light vandalism..but, unfortunately... Anyway, thanks for the input! Dreadstar † 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, hate messages should be treated with strictness; but, IMHO, it was strict enough that you blocked after a uw-vandalism3 (and a month-long block without any previous blocklog...). I'm not at all confident that he was going to stop vandalizing, however, remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. Besides, giving someone the benefit of doubt is never bad... just whack the banhammer harder if they don't take their chance. ;) · AndonicO Talk 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not at all confident that he was going to stop vandalizing, however, remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive.", Yes, I remembered that, and it was the very reason I blocked, to prevent more antisemitic hate messages. Hard to give someone who posts such messages the benefit of the doubt after the first such message, much less the second, third, etc... Dreadstar † 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

Could you move this to this? It is for a move to mainspace. Dreamafter ⇔ 03:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And could you indef block this user for me? It was a test for the symbols. Dreamafter ⇔ 03:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done indeed! Thank you! Dreamafter ⇔ 03:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please block this user? It was an account test. Dreamafter ⇔ 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please move this page to the mainspace? Dreamafter ⇔ 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And this one? You are a great admin for all of this help! Dreamafter ⇔ 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
For all of your help in moving the pages I have edited! Dreamafter ⇔ 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
One last time, at least I think it will be... This page: Dreamafter/Drafts/Distinguished Conduct Star too, if you will be so kind as to do so. Thanks a lot. You are great! Dreamafter ⇔ 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This one too... I am sorry for the trouble this causes... If I can repay you, I will... Dreamafter ⇔ 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Would this user be editing in a WP:COI way? Dreamafter ⇔ 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I feel like such a burden... Could you please move this one to the main? Dreamafter

Help, my blood pressure is rising

Just note the discussion at Talk:Arabian_horse#GA_Sweeps (on_hold) No need to say more. I think these people are out of their minds and confuse GA with FA, but if they have a legitimate gripe, then I'll source the article up the wazoo. Grrrrrr.....rrrrrr....rrrrr..... Montanabw(talk) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the tension is because they are threatening to delist the article from GA status and right at the moment, I have a lot of things on my plate that do not include finding 18 more citations to prevent it from being delisted. I am serious. If somewhere between the time the article first got GA status (when it had fewer citations than now and wasn't worded as well in some places) has changed its criteria and thus the article is now so inferior that it will lose GA status, I will drop other things to avoid having it delisted and having to go through that whole process again, but I think that this is really over the top and that a threat of delisting is an abuse of power. No problem if people want to throw in a few "fact" tags if there are some areas where it is legitimately needed (and not just a request for several additions of "id," which is what they are going to get in some cases). Sorry, but this IS how I breathe. Grrr....grrr... the BP is dropping a little, but I need to know whether to let these people just go blow smoke or if I need to stay up tonight until 3 in the morning getting this fixed! Grrr.... grr... Montanabw(talk) 02:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's about one in the morning, and I am done for now. Have added four unique, new sources to the article and footnoted to six additional existing refs, I really would appreciate a word somewhere as to whether this will back off these people, still seriously pissed that someone is trying to hold the article to a higher standard than it was held to when it was approved for GA, and when its status was challenged by others, and when it has been improved since that time. It isn't that I am not willing to look at the article to improve or change it, it's the approach. Montanabw(talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw, I fixed a ref typo for you and chimed in on the talk page. I used to live in Billings -;). — Rlevse • Talk • 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, as we call it here, "Buildings." (only skyscrapers in the state!) And thanks for your help. I would like to see CC back down on the threat to delist the article from GA if there isn't a source in every para. That feels like the way my junior high teacher used to grade term papers with a mechanical system and a chart. (sigh)  ;-D Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We really don't understand each other

I read your post on SA's talk page, and I was going to reply with this diff. I thought that in this diff you were telling me I was harassing you. From reading your post on SA's talk page, it appears you meant that you thought I was accusing you of harassing SA. Had I understood that, I would have clarified that I didn't intend to accuse you of anything of the sort. It's unfortunate that we didn't interpret your sentence in the same way; I don't think the discussion would have turned so sour had we better understood each other. Antelan talk 05:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Report

Your last comment on Wikipedia:Abuse reports/129.138.20.124 was nearly 3 months ago. I'm sure you forgot about it, but would you mind updating it, calling it actioned if appropriate? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I undid your removal. When you complete a report, just add {{ARA|a}} to the bottom of the report page (like this) and then a bot will automatically archive the report, removing it from the main WP:AR page (see here), and will add it to Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Actioned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, those handy bots! Way cool! Thanks Rjd! Dreadstar † 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem! - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See ...

Wikipedia:Levels of competence ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Leadership on "...Bleep..."

Hi Sir Dread...I really want to go on record as commending the leadership you once again gave the Bleep article.I believe that you were completely neutral, patient, tough if needed, but in a civil way. There is a fine line it seems to me between maintaining neutrality, and skepticism, and you I thought were very aware of were that line is/was.(olive (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Oh, why thank you so much Olive! What a nice message to start my new year off right..! And thank you for your helpful comments and support..that article is an amazingly hot button issue..especially for a film like that...! Dreadstar † 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Although.... the fact that the film has created such a hot button environment may be significant, although perhaps not to the article. "There are more things in Heaven and Earth,Horatio..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


my RfA

It certainly wasn't tough (unbelievably short-sighted maybe)...but still, I learned a few things. I think I'm going to forgo an admin coach right now. I will be starting training much sooner than expected and probably won't have time for much of Wikipedia anyway. Take care. — BQZip01 — talk 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Block on 91.108.255.244

Thank you for blocking 91.108.255.244. They have also used the IP addresses 91.108.210.124 and are currently using 91.108.205.92. Is there a way of blocking this range of IP addresses? Thanks. Somno (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dreadstar. How do I request a range block in the future? Somno (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When writing an RfC

When writing an RfC, such as the one you have written for What the Bleep?!, I think you should strongly consider ensuring that you have written a balanced summary of the goings-on. People on any sides of the disagreement should be able to see the summary and think "Yes, that accurately and fairly summarizes the issue." I don't think the current summary accomplishes this. Antelan talk 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For even more help than should be expected! Dreamafter ⇔ 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed a psuedodinner tonight

Hope yours was tastier. <insert smiley face here>(would have been a lot funnier if I could spell pseudo Awotter (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Dreadstar, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Dreadstar, thanks for stepping up at ArbCom. I am sorry (mostly for Wikipedia) that the dispute would up consuming valuable time on your part and others.

I wonder if you noticed the delicious irony...in the fact that source I contested, the one that SA attempted to cite to support of a claim of "consensus" that the topic is "generally derided by the scientific community as pseudoscience", and the entire basis of SA's "problem" was in fact a source that was already referenced in the article in the form of a published refutation, putting SA's source on the wrong side of SA'a "argument". The published refutation of that work (Quantum Enigma) is named as a source in opposition of the CCC interpretation.

Anyway, I think this is also relevant in light of the use of WP:SPADE as justification in that it was at the precise moment that SA realized that he'd made this embarassing error that he went to ArbCom...the correlation seems relevant....

Also, just curious...in light of:

(a) the fact that ScienceApologist has consumed SO much of Wikipedia's administrative resources in these areas in the past, and (b) the recent personal attacks on me, (the worst of which is still on my talk page) and (c) his frivolous "lawsuit" (consuming more Wiki resources), and (d) his failure it issue an apology or to remove the damaging material from my talk page

Given this, I'm not sure at all what kind of behavior merits sanctions here on Wikipedia. I don't think it's appropriate for me to also canvass for support (as SA did), but is that what's necessary and usual on Wikipedia?

Also, can you give me some guidance as to how I get his personal attacks off of my talk page without resorting to removing them myself? Can an administrator remove them and reference the previous ArbCom and these latest violations?

Thanks again...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tss8071

Thanks for dealing with this user, I endorse the block you have given. This user is almost certainly a sockpuppet master, and has been coming close to a block before hand over actions such as harassing me on my talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Open to recall?

Hi Dreadstar,

In light of your recent posturing against me, I'm wondering if you would be open to recall on your administrative privileges. How many established editors would it take asking for you to go through a second RfA before you would be open to this?

Regards,

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me one instance of where I have abused my admininstrative ability. I find this threat of yours to be harassment and completely unacceptable. Dreadstar † 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm simply asking what your standards for admin recall is as per Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall. You can always remove yourself from this category if you no longer are open to recall. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. You agreed at your RfA to be open to recall if five editors with more than 500 edits agree that you have abused your admin powers. That's all I wanted to know. Cheerio. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. Forgive me for not thinking your post was a "simple" request for my standards of recall. It's not worded quite that simply. Dreadstar † 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
YMMV. We're all human and it's often easy to misinterpret people's comments, statements, and questions. To be honest, I found your latest report and wording at arb-enforcement to be a bit suspicious (it doesn't look like a lot of what you normally write and looks suspiciously like the writing of User:Martinphi) and there are some peculiar patterns in your recent edits that make me wonder whether you were wikistalking me. However, we are all supposed to assume good faith, and so I put it to you that while these suspicions entered my mind, I assume that you were simply acting as you thought, independently, would be best for the project (and not as, for example, a shill of User:Martinphi). However, I'm interested in knowing what my options are in case the worst happens, and so when I saw you were a member of the administrators open to recall category, curiosity got the better of me. Now back to your regularly scheduled editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal unblocking himself

If I read this guy's edit history[3] correctly, he just tried to unblock himself. Doczilla (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. And now he has signed it as you. Doczilla (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC) He must have seen that I reported that, or at least suddenly realized that wasn't the thing to do.[4] Doczilla (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING: misuse of mop-and-bucket

To be clear: using rollback in article where you are in a disagreement is a violation of administrator code-of-conduct. You should refrain from this sort of action or recall proceedings will be initiated. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use rollback, that's a simple edit. There's no violation. Dreadstar † 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Rollback feature. It may help you avoid making false accusations such as this in the future. Dreadstar † 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

Could you please block this unauthorized bot? Dreamy § 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

Image:Antiflame-star.png The Fearless Blocker/Flame Extinguisher Barnstar
In recognition & thanks for your efforts in toning down the rhetoric on Andalusian horse and standing up against harassment! Montanabw(talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh back atcha

Thanks for the message. Agreed. When I grow up, I wanna have admin tools. Except that I now have 849 pages on my watchlist. Somebody stop me! (And my wikicountitis is out of control, too, but 'nuff said there) Go get 'em! Montanabw(talk) 00:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of pseudoscience in other encyclopedias

I appreciate your comments on Bleep. Please consider commenting here. [5] Antelan believes the discussion should be closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

150.176.140.66 (talk · contribs)

IP user has immediately returned to vandalism again. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

M'Lord

M'Lord Dreadstar, we are most pleased to hear from you, for we have felt the loss of your companionship during our time of sickness. We hope that thou hast been well, and free of troubles, and eagerly await continued discourse, and your company. ~*Curtsey*~ Ariel♥Gold 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously

I don't understand why there are so many references to what "I" am doing made by you on Talk:WTBDWK. I am beginning to feel like you are baiting me. I've been in situations like this before and generally they have resulted in the banning of the user who keeps viewing me in this confrontational way. You seem to think that if you get rid of me everything will be okay. I've got news for you, it's not that easy and I'm not going to go away or stop pushing the matter.

Please stop making false claims of consensus and start dealing with the fact that we've located now nearly half-a-dozen references to criticisms of the movie for its pseudoscience that are enough to dedicate the sections found in the previous version. Also, remember that you don't own the article and although you may be proud of how you got the article to its current state realize that there are plenty of people who agree with me that it's worse now than it was when you started. If you can't stick to the rules of WP:TALK, then maybe you should stay off the talkpage.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you're not interested in dealing with your problematic behavoir directly. Very well, you can explain yourself to other people here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do I report a threat

Please let me know where I should report a threat made to me by SA. Anthon01 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tags:

{{Histfact}} displays {history source needed} for requesting sources for historical claims and history context. Click here for more information
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information


At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

Hi Chris, would you consider deleting this userbox? It's not in the best of taste, disparages our processes and seems to be an attack on another group of editors (consider how such a userbox would make the NJ Project members feel if something similar were directed at their group. Also, comments like these are uncivil. Thanks. Dreadstar † 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is in poor taste, but it was created out of frustration that information is being excluded contrary to policy. And there is nothing tangible that I can do about it since the people excluding that info are admins. So since I'm just a powerless peon, the only thing I can do is make others aware of this dispute. That is what this userbox is for. Also, I don't see how saying that someone else's joke was funny is uncivil. But, that all said, I'm a reasonable guy (and a peon), so if you still recommend that the template be removed, I'll do so. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Chris! I went ahead and deleted it for you, your cooperation and understanding is greatly appreciated.
As for the admins in the Coker dispute, none of them have used their Admin tools in the dispute, their actions are the same as any other editor. And yes, Alansohn's comments at the end of that post are definitely uncivil, and actually may even cross the line into a personal attack for insulting and disparaging other editors. Dreadstar † 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My remarks were entirely in jest, and cannot possibly be taken with any seriousness, let alone used as further example of the incivility and personal attacks you seem to find in every single remark or action I have made on Wikipedia. These comments were made in response to a bad faith implication that I, User talk:ChrisRuvolo and another user had banded together to attack the article (see diff). Your persistent and incessant assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks have to end. Your justifications for removal of clearly relevant material at the Hearts and Minds (film) article repeatedly make bad faith and utterly uncivil assumptions as to my actions in trying to improve this pair of articles in good faith. You and others have repeatedly subjected me to ad hominem personal attacks without any effort on your part to address this genuine incivility problem. Is it possible that some of your remarks just might be violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You have never responded to the issues I had raised here on your talk page (since archived) and at Talk:Hearts and Minds (film) regarding your removal of relevant sourced content from the film article. I am seeking a detailed explanation for your removal of this content and the specific Wikipedia policies justifying removal of sourced content in the absence of any issue raised by any editor of the article other than yourself. While I would have hoped that you would have undone this removal yourself in good faith, no action has been taken. Before pursuing conflict resolution steps on the Coker article, I will be addressing issues with the film article first as there is you are the only other party to the conflict there. I look forward to obtaining this explanation, so that appropriate dispute resolution steps can be taken based on the the explanation provided. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained it to you in detail here. Dreadstar † 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have responded to all of the justifications proffered there, which you have not responded to. Nor have you addressed your repeated displays of bad faith and personal attacks in your screed there. I am still awaiting a legitimate policy explanation justifying removal of sourced content in a clearly relevant article before pursuing appropriate conflict resolution regarding your administrative actions. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks in my "screed", as you call it. I pointed out your violations of WP:POINT and WP:UNDUE and I asked you about your motivations regarding Coker because of your behavior in the matter. I blocked you for continuing to make uncivil personal attacks after being warned several times, then unblocked you in good faith after you emailed me promising to stop attacking other editors and find consensus for your proposed version; but I see you continue to make uncivil comments about other editors. I suggest you relax and have a cup of tea. If you believe I have acted inappropriately, then by by all means take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Your abusive and disruptive rant alleging violations of WP:POINT and other baseless complaints made there and elsewhere are clear personal attacks and textbook violations of WP:NPA. It is extremely difficult to understand how you can possibly point to a good faith constructive comment made to an editor violating WP:Deletion policy as "uncivil", while standing behind your rather shameless personal attacks at Talk:Hearts and Minds (film). Your removal of sourced content from the Hearts and Minds only appears to me as further bad faith on your part. As I do indeed believe you have acted inappropriately and as you have refused to address the specific issues raised by your bad faith personal attacks, pursuing administrative actions to address these issues would indeed seem to be the appropriate course of action. I shall do so over a cuppa tea. Alansohn (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your self-revert of your earlier removal of sourced content related to Lt. Coker is a clear and positive step in the right direction. I have already added material regarding William Westmoreland's role in the film. While I so not see any relevance of the policy to this article, I will be more than happy to consider and make other additions that you may deem appropriate to address your concerns of WP:UNDUE. I will be more than happy to attempt to address any constructive suggestions made at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SEARCH-logo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:SEARCH-logo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Syzygy Darklock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Syzygy Darklock.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Dreadstar/Archive06, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

M'Lord

M'Lord Dreadstar, we are most pleased to hear from you, for we have felt the loss of your companionship during our time of sickness. We hope that thou hast been well, and free of troubles, and eagerly await continued discourse, and your company. ~*Curtsey*~ Ariel♥Gold 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor snark attack

Can you make the call if the user page for User:GaitedHorses is violating Wikipedia's no-commercial advertising standard? I am in a snark spat with this individual over a "breed" article that I merged into another (horse breeds project currently debating the "what IS a "breed" anyway?" question, I may back down on this one, maybe) but my main concern on the user page is commercial self-promotion. Some people don't get this bit, and given the fight I am having over merging Walkaloosa with another article on another spotted horse that is gaited, I'm getting frustrated. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, note their comments at Talk:Walkaloosa, quite willing to say someone else is not notable and just commercial promotion, eh? So a non-blue URL will pass muster, eh?  ;-) I see you have bigger fish to fry tonight, and by the way, I happen to think you have excellent judgement on most of these matters, which is why I bug you all the time! (ps is Ariel doing OK?) Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"2001: A Space Odyssey (film)" & interpretation thereof

Hi, Dreadstar -- I am fairly new to the editing game here, mostly concerned with straight physics and space exploration stuff, but I noticed your comments on Groupthink's complaints about the article on the interpretation of "2001" (which I think is way out of balance, and everyone seems to agree needs improvement if not deletion), and wondered if you think I am way out of line trying to connect the film up to the novel. I posted some remarks on the talk page outlining my thinking, with no comment elicited by anyone, other than a curt revert of my :addition by Groupthink.

I thought that Clarke's novel (both film and novel have separate articles in Wiki itself, of course) and the film would be reference enough, and that noticing that one is relevant to the other was hardly original research. I inquired ofArielGold, but she says she has no real knowledge of either the book or film and that the NOR problem is valid. Do you agree? Is this then "merely" a matter of supplying a few references (eg, Clarke's "Lost Worlds of 2001" perhaps), or is there some deeper reason likely to doom any attempt to find a reference that satisfies the policy? I believe it is important to show that the film is not just airy flim flam, but actually built on a solid foundation of what we know about the universe, life, and evolution.

It is speculative, of course, but very near the mainline, middle-of-the-road of reasonable possibilities, IMHO. Thus if one wanted to pick one (out of the 10^100possibilities) as the "null hypothesis" for "the way things are", then Clarke's explanation of "2001" would be quite a defensible choice. Thanks -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the concerns about WP:NOR are valid. I took a critical look at the article's subject and feel that since there seem to be many sources that try to interpret 2001 ASO, that this particular subject could be valid. We must find sources that support the content in relation to the subject of the article...not just the movie or books - they must be sources that talk specifically about interpetations of 2001. And they must meet notability requirements, which I think they do, considering the amount of official speculation and number of reliable sources on the subject. I've only started looking into this, and will investigate more later. Let me know what you find out source-wise. Dreadstar † 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I will undertake a search for better sources with the time I have and have also posted a request for suggestions among a circle of folks in the community interested in Clarke's work. Will keep in touch. Wwheaton (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Please do keep me posted. I'll try to do a bit of research myself. Dreadstar † 07:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a stupid question, but is it allowable to give references to Clarke's explicit comments on the relationship of the film and novel? Ie, that the latter is relevant to the former? The novel of course does not mention the film, but Clarke's "Lost Worlds of 2001" has a diary of the two years while he was working with Kubrick on the novel, and there is material there that seems to the point. I could quote or summarize that, but am a little vague as to whether it might not also be considered OR. Wwheaton (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If Clarke's comments are in relation to the subject of the article, "the interpretation of 2001ASO", then yes, it can be used in that article. Dreadstar † 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar, here are some samples of the material I have found, or been given:

This courtesy of John Sherwood, a journalist and editor: From McAleer, Neil, "Arthur C. Clarke: The Authorized Biography," Contemporary Books, Chicago: 1992 (ISN 0-8092-4324-5)
Page 209-210:
Clarke, on the other hand, was having fun with all the controversy. In fact he sometimes added to it. Soon after the film's release, he made a statement about 2001 that disturbed the MGM executives. "If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention." When asked what he thought of Clarke's statement, Kubrick said he disagreed with it. "I believe he made it facetiously," said Kubrick. "The very nature of the visual experience in "2001" is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not – and should not – require further amplification.
Clarke rejects Kubrick's characterization of his comment as "facetious." Wrote Clarke, "I still stand by this remark, which does not mean one can't enjoy the movie completely the first time around. What I meant was, of course, that because we were dealing with the mystery of the universe, and with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at least one logical structure – and sometimes more than one – behind everything that happens on the screen in "2001", and the ending does not consist of random enigmas, some simpleminded critics to the contrary. (You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the 'right' one – whatever that means.)"
Page 212
Now, during the raging controversy over Kubrick's movie, Clarke was having a wonderful time on the lecture circuit and promotion trail. All the talk, of course, was about the film, but that helped sell copies of the book.
"I always used to tell people, ' Read the book, see the film, and repeat the dose as often as necessary[emphasis added],' " said Clarke. …
Physicist Freeman Dyson, of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, liked the novel and urged others to read it: "After seeing "Space Odyssey", I read Arthur Clarke's book. I found the book gripping and intellectually satisfying, full of the tension and clarity which the movie lacks. All the parts of the movie that are vague and unintelligible, especially the beginning and the end, become clear and convincing in the book. So I recommend to my middle-aged friends who find the movie bewildering that they should read the book; their teenage kids don't need to."
----------------------------

Here are notes on one I found:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0073.html,
"Arthur Clarke's 2001 Diary", excerpted from ACC "Lost Worlds of 2001", New American Library (New York), 1972. (I have this book somewhere)
Extremely useful. Almost day-by-day dairy of ACC's stay in NYC, with Kubrick, brainstorming and writing, 5/28/64 to 12/25/64, at which point he (naively) considered the novel essentially complete. Clear that the overall meaning, as a story, was still up for grabs between them. Then more after Stanley (SK) sold it to MGM as 'Journey Beyond the Stars" and they went into serious detailed production planning. Only settled on the concept for the ending, Bowman's return as an infant, on 10/3/65.
For example:
On 11/18 he writes, "Feeling rather stale -- went into London and saw Carol Reed's film about Michelangelo, The Agony and the Ecstasy. One line particularly struck me -- the use of the phrase "God made Man in His own image." This, after all, is the theme of our movie.'

I think there is more, this only scratches the surface. I suppose it will have to be summarized and boiled down some for the article, though maybe the raw text above can go on the talk page to convince doubters? At some point I will put out a lead-in section (with the essentially the same sense as the one Groupthink deleted), on the talk page for discussion. The if we can get some kind of resolution (not sure I hope for consensus without wider participation of interested "Clarke scholars".

Then the article has to get unlocked -- can I just ask the same way you asked to have it locked? Assuming some resolution on the talk page, of course, which at the moment seems optimistic. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me read and mull this over, and please keep looking for other interpretation sources. We can always ask that material be added to the protected article, or ask for unprotection once we have agreement about the tag dispute. I'm not sure what it would take to do that at this point, but additional sources might help. Dreadstar † 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with warning templates

When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this:[6]. I'd like some feedback on this as a possible template for non-admins to use when they revert past a level 4 warning. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dreadstar...

Thanks for filing the request.

By the way, FYI on WP:NPA here, see comments at the bottom of the edit, this is basically a repeat performance of the editor's last personal attack against me, which coincidently(?) also happened when (s)he got caught with his/her pants down on a source, that time it was the text "Quantum Enigma". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

Still problematic. Claiming that there is disagreement about the issues of including a word in the lead is so ridiculous as to not deserve discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But there is a disagreement about use of the word, there is no "claim" about it. If you think it's ridiculous, then why push so hard for it's inclusion...? Dreadstar † 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The disagreement is between people who mistakenly think that pseudoscience is a problematic word when we have reliable sources which use it. I'm not interested in rehashing a discussion that will go nowhere because of people's unfamiliarity with a term that is used in most introductory science classes as an object lesson. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You should be very interested in following the dispute process; and "rehashing" the issues with the involvement of a mediator is the very purpose of the RfM. Your own statement above shows that you do not seem to truly understand the issues around using the word in the lead section of the film's article. Participating in the Formal Mediation would be a sign of good faith in the process and in making the article better. Dreadstar † 20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of people clamboring for consensus about a word. I have read all the arguments against using pseudoscience. They're specious and I'm not interested in fighting them again. I'll also note that my issues with the article are almost completely ignored: that editors declare consensus where none exists, that mainstream sources are denigrated or ignored, etc. etc. etc. Nope, I don't agree to mediation on your terms. I'll be happy to write my own "issues" if you'd like, but I imagine you'd have a similar reaction. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a section in the Bleep RfM for you to write and add your own issues, why not put them there? From what I've seen, it is clear that dispute over the lead isn't just going to disappear, it needs to be resolved. As for your issues being almost "completely ignored," I can't understand how you think that, clearly several editors have engaged in extensive discussions with you over and over again. If you feel you're being ignored, then the Bleep RfM provides the perfect opportunity for you to be heard. Dreadstar † 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving at "What the Bleep"?

Hi Dreadstar, I agree the page was too large, but some recent and well-reasoned dialog got "put away", including this, and there's a resolution process in play...was there a reason for doing the archiving now, rather than waiting to let the mediation process percolate a bit??

Just curious, I'm a first timer in a mediation. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Have you looked at the talk page recently? My edits are all over it . I notice that you have not made the same comment to User:Slim Virgin whose edits to WP:CITE are even more frequent than mine and whose explanations have come up short. Can you please explain the disparity? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are reverting to keep your disputed proposed changes to a Wikipedia Guideline in place without consensus, thus my comment and recommendations to you. The main point is for you to find consensus and not continue attempting to get your version into place via edit warring. Dreadstar † 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the edits were to different sections and I am discussing it on the talk page. I understand and appreciate your zeal to protect the wiki, and would appreciate it even more if you were to apply your notices to all involved parties, as there is currently a lack of consensus on this issue. Regardless, I commend your enthusiasm and look forward to continuing to working with you. Perhaps I can convince you to read the discussion and weigh in with your opinions? Right now, there are only two to four editors discussing this in detail, and as you saw fit to contact me, it seems that you are following this conversation, so your input would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear, these edits are revert warring and violate WP:3RR: [7][8][9][10]. Dreadstar † 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Please review WP:3RR, the last two edits were sequential and count as one. As an admin, you should know that. See Wikipedia:3rr#What is a revert?. THESE are an example of WP:3RR as they include no sequential edits: [11], [12], [13], and [14]. -- Avi (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to re-read WP:3RR, "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". Dreadstar † 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of course, which is why I am not editing the page now. Which cannot be said for the person who has not only edited in an equally "disruptive" manner, but also has actually violated the letter as well as the spirit of the law. Now, I am not suggesting you block the editor for 3RR, as that will serve no purpose. I am pointing out what I perceive as a slight partiality in your application of warnings, and as admins, we need to uphold wiki's policies and guidelines equally and impartially to all. You and I came on-wiki around the same time, and have within 10% edits of one another, but I see that you are somewhat of a new admin I see (Sept 17, 2007) so I can put this down to zeal, which I do truly appreciate. However, if I may suggest, it is a good idea to look at all sides in a situation before coming down hard on one or the other inequitably, because the facts may not bear out ones initial supposition. Feel free to drop me a line any time, and I still would appreciate your comments ABOUT the specific sentence in the templates, if you care to continue to monitor the talk page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again...some guidance please?

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to include diffs to illustrate the points I made in the additional issues section, would appreciate your feedback on my entries there and any other advice for a "first timer" in mediation.

Also, please see relevant post about a related issue here, involving the same editor.

Thanks (again) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation rejection

It's very strange, the editor that disagreed with mediation later added additional items to be mediated. What do you recommend now that the request has been rejected? Dreadstar † 05:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. I don't think this is irreconcilable, but if for some reason it is seen that way, what is the next step in resolving an 'irreconcilable dispute'? Dreadstar † 05:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the reservations certain editors have with the issues being irreconcilable, not the issues themselves being irreconcilable. -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How would one deal with that situation? An editor believing the issues are irreconcilable? Now I'm not sure which comments you're referring to, ones in the issues to be mediated section or in the parties agreement to mediate or both? Dreadstar † 05:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to clarify what I meant. -- tariqabjotu 05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks! Dreadstar † 05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a problem

I came to you with this problem, because I needed a third party intervention. I have a vandal whom I suspect is using two accounts-- Veale728 and Fractions. The reason I suspect this comes from the fact that when I warned Veale728 for vandalising the articles Nickelback, Chad Kroeger, and The Long Road. I was responded to viciously by both accounts. On the this page, my warning was reverted by the Fractions account and the Veale728. This is the vicious result after leaving one warning. This is a long drawn out ordeal I know, but I just want to know if I'm in the wrong and if you can help. Thanks in advance. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help in this matter. You rock! --Candy156sweet (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is another sockpuppet for the account of Fractions with tbe username of REGENERATED. He just commented on my talk page. This person obviously has something wrong with them. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but he's really annoying. Thanks in advance. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. It's much appreciated! Take care and have a fantastic weekend. --Candy156sweet (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You like trouble...?

I am not even going to respond to this soapbox rant. Maybe no response is necessary, but there are a number of personal attacks in this comment, a lot of soapboxing, and a fair amount of unsourced ranting that makes no sense whatsoever. I think I was the one who reverted this person's edits to the Mustang article too (if reverting a POV rant and blanking of sourced statements was that editor's edit), they are clearly upset with some of my earlier comments (indeed, I don't give a rat's ass about taxonomy stuff other than suggesting that if they footnoted to sources less than 25 years old, that might settle the matter) and I am just concerned that without a gentle admin intervention about the Pillars of Wikipedia, there could be escalation. Best to slow problems before they start. (Or, if Ariel is returning to health, this may be a task for her gentle hand). Thanks muchly, oh great one! Montanabw(talk) 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Clearly this individual is having issues. Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism

We're having some trouble here, and thought that you might be of some help. On January 15, User:Espoo moved the article Spiritualism to Spiritualism (religious movement). The move had not been discussed, and at least three of us who have contributed to the article (User:Anthon.Eff, User:Nihil novi, and User:Tom Butler) have objected to the move. Unfortunately, User:Lucyintheskywithdada, who had encouraged User:Espoo to make the move (on his talk page), has taken over the page Spiritualism, creating an article on her own personal view of what "spiritualism" means. User:Lucyintheskywithdada is an ambitious and energetic editor, and has not only written quite a bit on the Spiritualism page, but also on the Spiritualism (religious movement) page; in addition, she has created a template reflecting her personal views, inserting it into a wide range of articles (usually with no consideration of the template's effect on article layout). I think it fair to say that there exists an air of hostility between her and those who had edited the article before her arrival. The Spiritualism article (now Spiritualism (religious movement)) was fairly well-developed, having grown for over two years in such a way as to find a middle ground between skeptics, Christians, and various factions of spiritualists. It was undergoing a GA review when the move occurred.

I think the article Spiritualism (religious movement) should be moved back to Spiritualism. These are the reasons:

  1. Spiritualism can mean various things--it's a term in philosophy, a term in theology, it is a synonym for animism, and it can refer to the religious movement that communicates with the spirits of discarnate humans. By far the most common meaning is the last. In fact, no one saw fit to write articles on the other topics (except animism) during the two years I've been here (I take that back--in the last week or so User:Lucyintheskywithdada wrote an article on the philosophical use of the term Spiritualism (philosophical) and Materialism ). My understanding of policy is that WP should use common names (WP:Naming_conventions_(common_names)), so I think the religious movement has the best right to the article name.
  2. The article that currently resides at Spiritualism aims (I think) at describing animism, but wants to talk about elements of major religions (such as Islam, Hinduism) that resemble animism, and thus ends up becoming original research. I think the tag that applies best is WP:SYN. In my opinion, the whole article belongs on a website outside of WP, not on WP.
  3. The article was moved without discussion.

The editor who did the move, User:Espoo, has a history of doing moves without notice. On December 13, he moved the article Spiritism to Kardecist spiritism, without any discussion. Editors were able to move it back, because Spiritism contained only a redirect. The current situation is more complicated, because the original page has been taken over by another editor, User:Lucyintheskywithdada, who is User:Lwachowski under another name. She has had some earlier problems (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Lwachowski).

Not knowing how to handle this problem, I contacted Dekimasu since I knew that he works on move-related issues. Unfortunately, he is not available until sometime in February. I then thought of you, since you resolved a situation last summer on Translation that in some ways might be similar to our situation. I hope you are willing to help. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Apparently User:Nealparr's changes have already been reverted by User:Lucyintheskywithdada. I'm not optimistic that this can be resolved by editors without the assistance of an administrator--especially the issue of moving Spiritualism back to its original page, so I hope you will stay involved. Thanks. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I am very willing to discuss matters but I do take offence at the use of repeated and incorrect allegations made against me or my edits. Especially when I have already pointed out to the editor making them, Anthon, his error. These have been, of course, deliberately prejudicial. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone's and my position rests with the references and citations I have provided.
Again, Anthon has tried to belittle me in finding supporters by suggesting that I am confused between animism and Modern American Spiritualism. I am not. I am very clear on the difference. And I am not coming from a North American perspective (and authors from Conan Doyle down have all states the point illustrated about spiritualistic phenomena being universal).
I am sorry but the Wikipedia is an international project. And I am sorry for Anthon ... but the Modern Spiritualist no longer own the word. Having failed to have a template I proposed deleted without direct discussion, I see he now goes to delete it form every article was on and engages in blanking pages. Enough. I appreciate this might be a matter of his faith but that has not first place on the wikipedia. I am editing from an anthropological point of view where the term is widely used.
Please do tell us where to take this matter. Its becoming ridiculous. I do appreciate the cultural difference BUT I am afraid the America view is not exclusive. The compromise I offer is the current spiritualism page acting as a disambiguation. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to clutter up your talk page Dreadstar, but one point needs to be clarified. Lucy, please clarify what you mean by "blanking pages". I have never blanked a page. You should respond on my own talk page. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Dreadstar ... what at all was uncivil about that? (I read it again and if you mean the bit about his American POV, that appears to me to be the academic problem at hand. The rest of the world uses spiritualism more broadly and Modern Spiritualism specifically. If you meant my response to being accuse of being a sock, he and I have been through all that before).
Athon, you blanked Spiritualism and replaced it with a policy page [15] --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff. It's clear that I only added the tag for WP:SYN, without touching the rest of the article. That's not what is meant by "blanking pages". --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
My comments are couched in pleases and thank yous. So how does one politely make such a statement of fact?
In the USA, or Tennessee, one might apply the term spiritualism to Modern Spiritual. The rest of the academic around the world sees it differently and, as stated, refers to it as Modern American Spiritualism by way of clarification. Its a common differential.
The Wikipedia is not American, so what do we do? I am waiting for one single specific comment on the citations I have provided all of which underline a broader interpretation. Even the American authors quoted. Time has moved on, definitions have change as seen. Much more of the world is known. This is the crux of the matter. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Athon nominated for deletion this template and, through consensus, the nomination failed. The template remained.
Since his return, he has gone about deleting it from every article it is on. I look forward for evidence of parity in your addressing of these matters.
It is not a minor issue of British versus American spelling. Its a matter of how a word is used internationally versus how it is used within some parts of America. "Bias" is a perfectly neutral word where biased, perhaps, is not.
But all this is to distract from the real issue which is the use of the word. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
We have attempted engage Anthon at length over this but he will not address the issue and is adamantly stuck on his bug-bear spiritualism is only used to refer to his definition. I am happy for the article in question Spiritualism (religious movement) to be renamed to Modern American Spiritualism IF that is what it is to be limited to but the topic is far broader as.

Citation method or technique versus style or format

Hi Dreadstar,

Re. your edit summary Citing sources 22:38, 30 January 2008 (Find consensus for this change, no edit warring)

Can you explain what you mean by consensus exactly?

In the interest of the 'Citing sources' project page's stability, and in order to avoid edit warring, I suggested this change in discussion three days prior to implementing it, clearly indicating my intent to do so if there were no counterarguments forthcoming.

I also cited summarised feedback in general support on the Citing sources talk page when it came to posting the edit on the project page.

If you disagree with the edit then I think the onus is on you to at least try to explain why.

The terms 'citation style' and 'citation format' are confusing when applied to the issue of usage or non-usage of citation templates. If you Google search the term "citation formats" for example [16] you get pages such as academic guides from universities and other educational institutions telling you about the different formats such as MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian, AMA, etc. - e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Bear in mind also that my latest edit was not the 'citation technique' version that SlimVirgin had objected to, so consternation about edit warring is not really applicable on that count either.

SlimVirgin had said "To call a template a "technique" is strange writing. It is a style or a format or a method, perhaps, but "technique" is just odd." Now personally I don't consider that a constructive criticism at all. It's certainly not a substantiated argument. It's just POV pronouncements like "strange writing" and ""technique" is just odd", not backed up by any supporting evidence, actual facts, or anything like.

Dictionary definitions of 'technique' include - "method of performance; way of accomplishing" and the application of "procedures or methods so as to effect a desired result." So, in the context of citation templates, the connotation of 'technique' as in 'tools and techniques' is clearly a better term than either 'citation format' or 'citation style'.

I happen to think ‘citation technique’ is better than ‘citation method’. But even so, even so, I changed 'technique' to 'method' in the spirit of compromise and in the interests of working to a consensus. Slim's post had said "a method, perhaps" after all.

If editors such as SlimVirgin do not deign to discuss further, no other counterarguments are forthcoming, and other feedback has so far been in support of the change, then it's otherwise difficult for me to understand the issues with subsequent posting to the project page in any terms approaching reasonably equitable rules of engagement.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comment on my talk page

That would be a threat, which is most certainly an abuse of process, and one to which I do not take kindly. Do that again and I'll report you to ArbCom. Groupthink (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of another 3O, why don't you put in a Request for Comment. And no, it's not a threat - it's an observation - why don't you have a nice cup of tea and relax? Dreadstar † 05:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that being as obstreperous as you've been and then making that suggestion is highly patronizing and insulting, don't you? An RfC isn't necessary, there's already been two 3rd ops. Perhaps you should look to your own advice and quit being so stubbornly oppositional about your position. Groupthink (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem overly upset about this, I was just making a suggestion that you try to chill out a bit. Dropping uncivil remarks on my talk page isn't helping anyone. Dreadstar † 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I hate to post anything as childish as "you started it"... but you did with that "misuse of process" crack. So, I'm going to finish this: I'll ignore you and your talk page instead. Please do not post to mine. Groupthink (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your proposed use of 3O is indeed an abuse of that process. Dreadstar † 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi again, & thanks for the sandbox. I'll help to collect material there. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And also for all the "raw work" I see you doing on the sandbox. I am working to a deadline on photometry of 70um infrared stars, but hope to contribute more soon. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I feel special now. :D Kamek (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Problematic user

Hi, I've reverted this guy's edits about (I think) 5 times now. Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks, phoenixMourning (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to you my friend. May I come to you with any other problems if needed? phoenixMourning (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! phoenixMourning (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition

Here is another sockpuppet of Fractions. I guess this is his IP number. Here is his last nonsense edit. I can't believe he's still at it. Take care and have a lovely week. Thanks in advance and grateful as always. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

2001 Interpretations revision

Wonderful how this is going. I just got a chance to read through it as it is now, and I am delighted. Thanks! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Life is, in fact, just a rodeo :-P

Just a request that you watchlist calf roping, Saddle Bronc and Bareback Riding, and, just in case, rodeo. User:HatAct has a strong POV on the matter, probably sincere, but made some strongly-worded edits citing flat earth-theory sources and I did fully or partially revert some of this material. Tried to leave as conciliatory as I can manage message on his/her talk page in hopes of taking it to discussion and not an edit war. Not ugly yet, could get that way. I'll spare you all the reasons I consider myself quite NPOV on the issues in these articles, but let's just say that the various factions have very hot emotions and I don't want to mediate an edit war if I don't have to. I also don't know when I am going to have the time to source everything, as I'm up to my ears with the Horse breed articles (all 350 of them). Also called FisherQueen for backup, she's stepped in over there before. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Brace for impact, me laddie, am about to revert the saddle bronc article. The calf roping article wasn't too bad, just had to restore one removed edit and remove one isolated topical edit, I think that one will cool down. On saddle bronc, I am going to revert and then see what I can add in of the other edits, there may be some useful material. But do keep your eyes open. Montanabw(talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will not flame nor resort to 3RR, but here we go. Thanks for your comments, but hope you are online and can keep an eye on these. Montanabw(talk) 06:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's time. see also steer wrestling's edit summaries and the last round of edits to the saddle bronc article. I've had it. Someone else needs to lay a firmer hand here. Montanabw(talk) 07:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I really need to hit the sack now. That idiot had me up for hours last night cleaning up this mess. If you are still going to be around for a few more hours, keep and eye on rodeo and steer wrestling too...my last "clean" edits are here for rodeo and here for steer wrestling. Won't request full protection yet, but use your own judgement. Muchas gracias and all that. Montanabw(talk) 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed edits

Why did you remove my edits to Vanboto's talk page? There was nothing insulting about them. Daedalus969 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're biting a new editor, arguing on his talk page after leaving an insulting message. That stops. Dreadstar † 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The most recent edit wasn't insulting. After the intervention of the admin I calmed down. Daedalus969 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Telling someone to "stop the insults" after you've insulted them and they've made no further edits is pretty insulting. There was no need for your further comment after two administrators had intervened in the situation. Dreadstar † 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean when I said that this isn't a game and he wasn't admin material? If not, I have no idea what you're refering to. All the other posts that are not signed are his. He was the one throwing insults.Daedalus969 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
When you said
"Ok, first, stop with the stupid D&D referenecs...not some stupid game. The fact that you are already judging people just because of a family guy reference states right away that you aren't admin material. You are the troll here, not us...Come back when you have an agruement that doesn't end in game terms."
Then you follow it up by telling him to stop the insults. That's insulting. Dreadstar † 04:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see that now. But that was only after I got fed up with him talking down to us and the like numerous times. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for understanding; I also apologize for the disruption myself. I should have stayed calm. Daedalus969 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
NP, it happens to the best of us.. :p Dreadstar † 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Do me a favor?

Hey, when you get a chance (since you've warned him/her before) can you remind User:Lucyintheskywithdada that harrasment of editors is a blockable offense, and that accusing someone of "plagarism"[22] for editing an info box is un-civil and a personal attack. Thanks for your time. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dread, I appreciate you have sympathies for Neal and a previously good history but I would appreciate some evenhandness in this matter.
I do not think that anyone would consider asking another editor engaging in major removal of academic references and citation where he has access to them, or has read them is "harassment". Especially given the history of mass revisions and disruption. I have held my hand out on his talk page and attempted to discuss with Neal his editing point of view on the topic between us and he refuses to do so. I honestly have no idea what the beef is.
As the original author of an infobox that survived a NfD I do think there should be clarity between the two different ones. It was not "edited" in the first place but had it purpose and meaning changed entirely to support one POV without discussion.
I have just checked the most recent revision and have no idea what is going on in that corner now. Having removed it en masse from all and any article many times, Neal seems to have now reverted to an early version and replaced it on article. He has won, I am leaving the matter entirely alone and to his hands.
--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted back to your version earlier today (the one you felt was vastly different) after you accused me of plagarism. Obviously you felt much stronger about it than I did. You accused me of "changing the intent of it" (whatever that was) and plagarizing it (when the colors where the ones I put in myself). You didn't hold out your hand on my talk page. Have a look. It's one insult after another. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another User Report

Since you're the only admin I really know, I'll just give these to you. The user 61.9.202.98 has had a long streak of vandlism if you check his/her Contributions.

As has 71.239.120.5, where is it I can report these? Daedalus969 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked. You can report vandals to WP:AIV. Dreadstar † 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Daedalus969 (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another List of Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion

There is a discussion going on here. I though you might be interested in commenting due to your previous comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Random hi

How are you? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

2001

I have summarily unprotected the article, hopefully the dispute is over. Do tell me if it flares up again, I would be willing to reprotect. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! At last we actually have something substantial enough that people can build on it. Before one hardly knew where to begin.
Re HAL I have only my own thoughts, of course illegal to inject into the article, though they must surely exist at least in part out in the literature somewhere. I think HAL was the one really important way in which 2001 differed from Childhood's End, as both essentially deal with plausible evolutionary futures for the human species and, more generally, of intelligent life in the universe. In the ten years between the two works, it must have became glaringly apparent to Clarke that non-biological intelligent life was an important alternative path forward for mind in it's development. Thus HAL is a possible link or bridge species between Man and Overmind.
I think Clarke takes a fairly sympathetic view of HAL in the novel, making him victim as much as monster, and I suspect this is because we really do not have enough perspective, as members of homo sapiens, to judge between the ultimate value of the two alternate forms of mind. Our chauvinistic moral judgments are (I suppose) formed out of our evolutionary history as humans, and HAL has none of that ancient wisdom to draw on, only what was programmed in. Only time will tell whether we humans are doomed to be the mortal enemies of all other intelligences, or possibly friends but forever separate, or whether some hybrid compromise might emerge.
Anyhow, congratulations on your accomplishment, and thanks again for all the work, which I could not possibly have done as fast or as well at this point. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning- you came close to 3RR here, please be more careful in the future. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I will, thanks. User was removing sourced material, which is borderline vandalism. I'll be more cautious in the future, though. Dreadstar † 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

2001, sigh....

Thanks, I'll do what I can. Sorry this has been so adversarial. I regret that I clearly do not really understand what is upsetting Groupthink, why he does not explain his problems better before just deleting. Makes it hard to narrow down the problems to find the real points of disagreement. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where, bye the way, is the material on HAL now kept? I dunno if I'll ever get to really working on it, but I should look at it again and try to keep it turning over in my brain. Thanks -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous. Thanks. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has been alot of Vandalism on this page Prosser, Washington Tim (Not a user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.243.97 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks goods thank you. I want no one talking bad about the city I was born in. Peace out.71.237.243.97 (talk) (Former vandal gone good) —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rodeo follies.

See Talk:Saddle Bronc and Bareback Riding and the "yee haw" comment. Do as you see fit. Nuff said. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And oddly enough, calf roping is a love fest. Maybe I feel sorry for the calves. Montanabw(talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks and...

thanks for all the fish! Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Best pic I've seen
Best pic I've seen

Spiritualism

Dread,

that move went beyond the discussion held. How can you account for this?

Would you mind if I moved it back until matters were settled?

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The related discussion [23] --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


And here is the ongoing discussion that Neal himself initiated ... [24]. For example, I don't see any discussion of consensus about dropping beliefs and practises and the same parties were still discussing the main page.
Currently, the use of the terms has a fairly American bias (WP:BIAS). It is not possible to suggest that very small survey taken all have a similar cultural bias that defies the current academic use documented?
And, please no, to discuss cultural bias is not bad faith or otherwise. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, look at that too, and note that everyone still wanted the original move reverted. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for the sake of accuracy rather than an emotional response, two editors made fairly well reasoned objections and the move was being formally discussed on the proper page [25].
Neal's has always been to avoid referring to the academic literature, even to the point of refusing to discussion his access or awareness of it after having made some very serious errors. [26]
I am sorry to persist in this Dread but, at the bottomline for myself and other editors, it is a simple issue of cultural bias, just as with the example I gave of Football - the editors do not wish to discuss - Spiritualism is not clearly entirely synonymous to Modern Spiritualism nor the Modern American Spiritualism movement within the literature. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, there is no reason to discuss myself with you. Why you consistently talk about me when seven editors total requested the revert of the original move is beyond me (six that aren't me, and five more than supported the original move, in case you're counting). Your link is from Jan. The Feb. discussion supercedes that. The "proper page" is the talk page of the articles: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry." WP:RM, second paragraph, further down under "Incomplete and contested proposals" it specifically says "do not discuss here". Your diff only shows one objection, yours, and it's littered with a personal attack on Anthon. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dread,

could I have the courtesy of a reply, the numerous moves and choice of titles went beyond the discussion?

And, no, there were two well argued objections to applying a generic term to a specific topic which seems intent on being limited merely to the use applied to the American religious movement. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

Lock

Is it possible that you can lock the talk page for 70.171.14.87. He's bashing me the same way on this talk page as he did on his other sockpuppets. I tried to just revert it and keep it under check myself for a while, but it just makes me look like an edit warrior. I, honestly, don't know how you can handle this kinda garbage all the time. Here is the history for the talkpage. Thanks a bunch as always. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

Semi-Protect page: Robert Kelly

Apparently this page has been subject to quite a bit of vandalism, especially for such a short page. This isn't surprising considering the subject, who is a guest and friend of the Opie and Anthony radio show. Being a fan myself, I know the willingness of many of their fans to disrupt and aggravate situations, which would necessitate at least a temporary protection of the page, mostly to discourage the more persistent vandals. Any help would be appreciated. DestradoZero 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it something I ate?

I can't seem to ever stay away from edit spats, and on this one I tried for several days while others waded into the fray. New spat at bitless bridle that has spilled over into minor edit warring at hackamore. Can you simply watchlist hackamore for safety's sake, and maybe birddog Bitless bridle as you see fit? Short version: "hackamores" have existed for centuries; "bitless bridles" were patented by some guy here in the USA a decade or so ago. Not the same thing. (Or, more precisely, a "bitless bridle" is a type of hackamore, but a hackamore is not a "bitless bridle") Check out user page for User:AeronM, then skim the talk page on the bitless bridle article. This has been going on for about a week. I waded in 2-3 days ago and am starting to get rather pissy. (I call an admin when I am tempted to not AGF) Probably not going to get as serious as the rodeo stuff was, but there is an element of commercial self-promotion going on and a bit of POV-pushing. (Note: I did the major expansion of hackamore, so it's not like I am pro or anti-bit. Again, attempts at neutrality and balance are being viewed as "pro" something.) Anyway, you have admin tools and if any of us, including myself, get out of line, well, You exercise good judgement in these matters. Or, turn it over to a fellow admin who needs a little edit spat amongst crazy horse people again. Thanks oh great one. Oh, and you can buy her gadget for $32.99 on eBay, note here. Can also use Google for data. Montanabw(talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw has it backward. A hackamore is a kind of bitless bridle (see verified, reliable sources quoted on Talk:Bitless bridle). --Una Smith (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly argument and an edit war I am thoroughly sick and tired of, needs not go here. The OED lists "hackamore" as a word dating to 1850, derived from Sp. jaquima. "Bitless bridle" is a description for people who don't know what a hackamore is. OED doesn't even define it as a term of art. Now, let's leave poor Dreadstar alone and take this back to the articles in question. Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Dreadstar, how are you doing? More to the point, how is our very dear ArielGold doing? I think User talk:AeronM is presenting a situation designed for her fine touch if she's up to a challenge. The talk page explains much, she is even turning not only on people like me who are fustrated with her, but also on the main editor who is trying to help her. She changes people's edits, removes material and is so busy no one can keep up with her. Montanabw(talk) 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help re: Jiraiya (Naruto)

Someone has semi-protected this page, most likely because of a dispute with his status (deceased or not). I have proof, but my references were deleted more than once and now I am being kept from providing solid evidence, now. (I found out that my original references were faulty.)

If I can prove to you (or someone) that this is true, can something be done to add this information? I'd appreciate any help, I am tired of people fighting to keep misleading (or a lack of) information. Thanks again. DestradoZero 09:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. Mrprada911 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...

Stop beating me to the revert with Huggle or I will block you... So not joking :-P ScarianCall me Pat 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, don't think I don't know what you're doing. I know your tactics: keep messaging me and it'll take my attention away from huggle and you'll get the rv. That's a real low, man. I honestly expected better from you. Pat shakes his head disappointedly... ScarianCall me Pat 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Drat! Caught again! BwAHAAahahaAHAh! Dreadstar † 03:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dc2000dsl

I am not entirely certain but is User:Dc2000dsl promoting some sort of company? -WarthogDemon 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What should I tag Transitional work with? -WarthogDemon 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably should just redirect to another existing article...something along the lines of Job creation program. Dreadstar † 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
He's reverting it back here: Transitional work. -WarthogDemon 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why my article was deleted. I am not promoting a company. Transitional Work Corporation is a non profit organization that helps with welfare individuals with employment assistance. NONprofit. it is a recognized leaders in welfare to work and it is important that this model continue to be used worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc2000dsl (talk • contribs)

Ouch

Glad I watched out and avoided 3RR there. :P This is one grasshopper that's learning! At any rate I have two more unrelated queries... First, I reverted an edit at Final Destination (series) for being POVish. My revert and justification is here: [27] and I'm wondering if I'm correct in my judgment. Second of all, I have just made an article about a director here Ray Kellogg. Aside from this person, there is an entirely different Ray Kellogg who is an actor: [28]. Would the second one be article-worthy as well? I'm having my doubts as most of his roles are a few odd episodes of television shows and a few movie rolls where he goes uncredited. What're your thoughts? -WarthogDemon 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agh, if that editor had shown any desire to learn and write a good article I wouldn't have had to block....I was trying to help! But he was determined to keep banging his head against the wall...
Wow, that second Kellogg was sure in a lot of bit-parts for a lot of years...I did a quick search but couldn't find any other details...so I doubt he's notable enough for an article. Did you find any other info that might make an article? I see a bunch of stuff on the other Kellogg..but not the second one... Dreadstar † 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find anything about the second one. I thought I found some additional historical info about the first, regarding military service, but I think the service was from a third dude. I'm wondering how to fix up Ray though. I think I'll have to delink instances where the second Ray shows up wikilinked. Otherwise it's going to look like the two are the same person. -WarthogDemon 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock

User:Mood Swing Cosby seems to share similar patterns with both User:Billcosbyislonely and User:BC-D2, so it looks like we have a repeat offender. They have similar edit histories (they all vandalized Gung-Ho (G.I. Joe)) and their usernames are all indicitave of Bill Cosby for some reason.  ;) BOZ (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

2001...

Yes, I thought of that, but put it in simply to balance the assertion (based I think only on Kubrick and Clarke's statements?) that it is meaningless, by paraphrasing Clarke's second ("I stand by...") statement, which I hope I captured accurately. I confess I remain a bit perplexed over these levels of OR -- when one may quote Clarke in support of a point one believes Clarke is making, versus going back to another source quoting Clarke to state that Clarke meant such and so, ad infinitum:

   "Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
   And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum...."

Sigh. I think I do understand that one must not cite source A and source B to make claim C, but can only paraphrase source A's statement of claim A. The latter is how I hope to squeak by, as I do not have any more explicit reference at hand. Anyhow, if it is not defensible, I'm sure it will get deleted. But thanks for the cautionary warning! Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Revised & shortened. Intended to paraphrase; any better? B Wwheaton (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact Tag Bombing?

I'm not adding fact tags to promote any point of view and it seems you have no good reason to accuse me of doing so. I'm simply trying to add to the quality of wikipedia. As you may notice some of them that I put up are now cited. The fact tag's work, at least to some degree. They even convinced you to cite something on Thailand's king. Please think a little more carefully before accusing someone of something with no grounds to do so. Remember, assume good faith is a policy.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're overdoing it by adding too many fact tags. If you think something needs to be cited, then why don't you find references instead of adding multitudes of fact tags. If you keep doing as you have been doing, you will be blocked. Please assume good faith, no one "convinced" me of anything, I do this type of work all the time, dabs and finding references. Dreadstar † 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm...quite a "convincing" point. I think the success and worthiness of wikipedia is directly dependent on it having good sources and the ability to verify it as such. I am simply noting facts that need this.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Amber Lynn image

I have removed the image of Amber Lynn you uploaded as it's licensed as fair-use, and clause 12 of the unacceptable uses in WP:FU clearly states: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Tabercil (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The image was provided by Amber Lynn. I have forwarded the email to the the Wikimedia Communications committee and tagged the image per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If the tags aren't correct, please let me know. Dreadstar † 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One for your watchlist

You may want to just watchlist Navicular disease. Or ask Rlevse to watchlist it. Or, more precisely, the talk page. I want to stay out of that one if at all possible; stuck my toe in and decided to step back out. FYI, User:Getwood is a new editor and one who has, so far, done some nice quality editing and seems to know anatomy and physiology of horses pretty well. Has a lot of potential if not run off by POV edit wars. Montanabw(talk) 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle Category Problem

Hi there.You are receiving this message from me as you have not added your huggle category correctly. At the moment on category here you can see that you are sorted under the letter U. To fix this please change the [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle|YOURNICKNAMEHERE]]. This will fix the problem. If you do not change this within a few days then i will do this for you but i would prefer to send you a message like this than just go and change your page. If you want to contact me then please use my talk page as i will not be checking back here. Thanks for your help. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I took care of it. Enigma msg! 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't even know I had that cat... :) Dreadstar † 09:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spencer Rice

Hi, I saw you deleted this title twice for a copyright violation; it's now protected, but it's unclear to me why it's being protected (Rice is the co-host of Kenny vs. Spenny). Is there further need to keep the title protected? Chubbles (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually watch the show, but I'll put up a sourced stub on him that will at least get the ball rolling. Chubbles (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Chubbles (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J Meyer Debate

This is what I posted to ensure ther was no misunderstanding. Good people, I am the author of the article and I hope this is not improper of me to submit a comment to your discussion, but I must clarify. Of the many written documents listed above attributed to Col Leo J Meyer, the only item that is from the subject of this article is "The Only Thing Permanent In The Military... Is Change. Col. Leo J. Meyer, Official Homepage, 95th division, U.S. Army"[1]. Please do not be confused. The other LJ Meyer is quite notable in his own right. Meyerj (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Meyerj (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

CliffordRay

Done. I was kinda wary about blocking him myself, but blanking a whole article made it hard for me to assume good faith. Blueboy96 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Chaplin

You should be aware that this is someone's real name and placing notices on his user and talk pages that he is blocked as a sockpuppeteer is perhaps going to be considered distressing to him. Are you sure you are doing the right thing here? Maybe you should reconsider. —Whig (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That hasn't happened. Dreadstar has tagged the correct users. -- Fyslee / talk 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Dreadstar, I'm objecting to this, until I get an explanation. Has he chosen to really vanish? That would be too bad, since he's welcome to continue as The Tutor, if he wishes, and even to forbid the use of his real name here. He just shouldn't be underhanded or deceptive about it. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is forbidden here, and he's been trying to do that by disassociating himself from his former user name. -- Fyslee / talk 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not have the right to out people, Fyslee. Neither MC nor TT have been blocked or banned for any behavior, and there is no proof they are the same. —Whig (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with outing people. Many others have made the association, so there's no reason to single me out. It happens to be forbidden to attempt to hide oneself from the scrutiny of other editors. That means one's track record should be obvious, and we're all objecting to attempts to deny a connection (without actually denying it...). There are proper ways to vanish (that means not returning), and proper ways to continue using a new identity. Deception is not part of that formula. I am far from the only one concerned about this. No one is claiming that Martin has misused a sock. He's just not playing with open cards. I welcome him to continue, and even keep his real name out of Wikipedia, it just has to be done properly. -- Fyslee / talk 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking further into this situation; the right thing will be done, no worries. Dreadstar † 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. I want him treated fairly, but if he's been screwing with us..... He needs to be informed of the proper way to do this and we need to be informed so we can respect his privacy, if that's his concern. It certainly wasn't a concern when he first came here and created waves, including deliberately planning on violating policies. I had to speak pretty loudly to get him to stop. -- Fyslee / talk 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I see that he has invoked his right to vanish:
  • 16:33, March 6, 2008 Dreadstar (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Martin Chaplin" ‎ (RTV)
That means we shouldn't be seeing anymore activity from The Tutor. If we do, then further investigation needs to take place. -- Fyslee / talk 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, there is no proof that The Tutor is the same person. Please stop harassing him. —Whig (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No harassment here. My comments have been with others. You are the one who is sticking his nose into something that shouldn't concern him. Why such a great interest? He can defend himself, if he will, but I haven't seen an outright total denial yet (since the check user), as the checkuser has would outed him. He seems to be keeping his back free. -- Fyslee / talk 03:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He never denied it? Really? —Whig (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the only place he came close (before the check user results) and hasn't repeated it since. He probably is aware by now that he can get caught up in a lie. Obviously none of us believed that short attempt to disassociatge himself from his former user name. That's why we are protesting. Deception is what's getting him in trouble. You can believe him if you wish, but The Tutor is obviously not a new user and he shares the rather unique interests, knowledge, and mindset of MC closer than a mother is related to their own child. Please don't be naive here. Fighting for a principle is one thing, but ignoring the obvious isn't smart. BTW, I have refactored my comment above. -- Fyslee / talk 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the requisite number of denials? First you said he never denied it, then you refactored yourself after I proved he did. Cute. —Whig (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the checkuser did not in fact confirm the connection, so you are misrepresenting that. —Whig (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a possibility they are the same person. Why should we care? It isn't our business to know. —Whig (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I refactored to make sure my careless wording wouldn't be misunderstood. It was a slip up. Simple as that. -- Fyslee / talk 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see, you carelessly omitted a special qualification that would make your false statement true. —Whig (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN thread. —Whig (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J Meyer

Mr Dreadstar, The Aug 1969 Green Beret Magazine article that is imbedded into the Leo J Meyer article was published in shorter form in the August 1969 Army Digest; The John F Kennedy Center (Special Forces School) publication VERITAS vol VIII No. 9 on June 13 1969; and the Army Times Newspaper on 4 Jun 1969.

These cutout articles are among the memorabilia that Meyer left along with uniforms and such which are going to be turned over to the Army Museum system at their request. It is a matter of which museum gets what, i.e. the NY State military department prefers to have his records and uniforms available from the 1930’s NY National Guard period but the US Infantry museum also wants it for a complete record.Meyerj (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke and neo-Nazism

The discussion goes against Duke's presence on this page. The sources give no info regarding any involvment in any Neo-Nazi organization, because he never was in one, and they only state that he was a Neo-Nazi, which he was when he was a teenager. Furthermore, this list is for people who attempted to revive Neo-Nazism and the New York Times article, which is the only somewhat reliable source, says nothing about Duke being involved in attempting to revive Nazism. Boodlesthecat and a couple of others have not bothered to return to the discussion and user Boodlesthecat has only resorted to breaching the 3 revert rule repeatedly.--Spitzer19 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:2001question.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:2001question.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the IP unblock

Wasn't IP hopping on purpose, apologize if I was disruptive. I'm not editing anymore, so don't worry about the 130.101 IPs. 130.101.152.108 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No disputing about taste....

I think I prefer plain, the details version just looks kind of cluttered and busy. Very nice both, I really like the basic concept. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Although I do like the addition of the space-bone...;) Thanks! Dreadstar † 06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Woof!! Wwheaton (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting Great Commission church movement

Any suggestions you have for resolving the POV dispute would be most welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals just sitting there... what now? ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPADE

There was no consensus for your additions certainly. That's why I reverted you: you are decaffeinating that most interesting essay and you could at least step down to the talk page to discuss those radical edits you tried to make. --Sugaar (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What additons? Dreadstar † 07:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I was under the wrong impression. I feel terribly stupid about it, really. My most absolute apologies. --Sugaar (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, these things happen, no worries! Thanks for the apology... Dreadstar † 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

POV pusher

I agree that name-calling doesn't' help, I just think that there are certain context in which calling someone a POV pusher is not name-calling. You mention RfC and ArbCom but these are formal prcedures we should use as a last resort. I still believe that the relatively anarchic process of editors editing one another's work is the way great articles get written. If someone is a POV pusher people working on an article should be able to confront that person and deal with it without having to go through some formal procedure like RfC or heaven forbid, ArbCom, which does not enforce content policies like NPOV anyway. The community has to police itself, things like ArbCom should be a last resort.

The essay in question is a lousy essay that doesn't help. That is because it doesn't have clear guidelines for recognizing POV-pushers (which requires a pattern of edits, not just one or two) and for distinguishing between saying "POV-pusher!" as an alert to the community (necessary and constructive) vs. as an insult (unnecessary and unconstructive). The essay needs a lot of work. But the basic point, that accusing someone of violating a content policy is not a personal attack, is true, really. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Username block

Hi Dreadstar, could you have a look at Ahoalton? I've never heard of "Ahoalton", and would appreciate if you could give some more details as to why this name isn't acceptable. Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the user's talk page. Dreadstar † 00:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. Addhoc (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with this guy

Pitt 32, check out his contribution. He just went ahead and moved the whole lot of Thai Kings page. I think he misunderstood that somehow wikipedia is disrespecting the kings, all other Monarch page didn't have the "King" in front as well.Suredeath (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See his talk page, blocked him for 48 hours while we fix it. I saw you fixing, I'll help. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks..lots of articles! Dreadstar †

OK,just wondering why the whole thing was tossed

OK, so you have tossed the whole section on pronunciation of chaps in favor of wiktionary, which has a really inadequate entry with the "other" pronunciation. Should the whole section go to wiktionary? I've never edited over there. But the problem here is that we are discussing a term of art, particularly when it comes to pronunciation, and truly, I suppose throwing out the whole thing may cool the debate for awhile, but I do feel there IS a place to explain that real cowboys really do say "shaps." It isn't just my thing or a regional issue; it is also how to help people not sound like dudes when they go west of the Mississippi. I put hours and hours into finding all those sources, sigh... My question is probably simple, then: Where CAN I find the general guidelines for how much wikipedia should have details on language use versus how much goes into wiktionary? And is it bad to at least put in the IPA pronunciation of both versions? Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Too late, made a good faith fix. Sourced everything. Now am taking deep breath. Montanabw(talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ahoalton

I probably blocked one of his numerous IP socks, which have been edit warring and POV pushing and being generally disruptive on that Order of the Arrow article. He's been trying to dodge earlier blocks via any means necessary... I mean, he all but admits there to using multiple accounts/IPs in direct violation of policy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you around?

Hi, Dreadstar. Are you around these days? I recall that you've looked in on the Warnborough College article a couple times in the past. We're currently discussion whether a recent addition possibly violates NOR. Basically, the editors are examining legal docs and drawing a conclusion about Warnborough. Maybe I'm being too nit picky and it's obviously not a problem. And it's not that big of issue, but I guess I tend to be cautious. Here's the discussion of whether it's appropriate to add Maine to the sentence that lists states where Warnborough degrees aren't accepted. [29] Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

shortened block on WNDL42 - what and why?

RE: this comment on WNDL42's talk page

Can you explain what "shortened block" means here - and what "responses" did WNDL receive? (you said your decision was in light of responses). It looks like 2 different admins have over-ruled Kafziel now. This is how I feel about the first over-rule - my comment on Rlevse's talk page. Are emails involved here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted material?

Hey, since you were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/scouts, and you also deleted the original User:Allstarecho/cfireusa as being a re-creation of deleted material, I want to get your take on the userbox that User:Allstarecho has placed at User:Allstarecho/cfireusa: User:Allstarecho/cfireusa

My gut tells me that this is still polemic and crosses over the line of why the original was deleted (userboxes shouldn't include qualifiers) as well as containing images that are not designed for userboxes (the old Camp Fire Girls stamp) but I wanted another opinion before I went forth with an MfD nomination. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith, but given the entire conversation on the original MfD discussion and the editor's talk page, I'm having a difficult time with it. I'll give it some thought over the next couple of days, and see where things go before I make a decision on whether or not to nominate. Thanks for your feedback. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

cheers!
cheers!

Thank you for cooling down things on chaps. Seems the the known involvement of an admin does a great deal to calm tempers on all sides, including my own. Have been mulling for awhile if wiki could benefit from something akin to a "request for babysitting" (though phrased more diplomatically) section. Seems like request for third party opinion is not really the right thing for edit wars, because the fact disputes aren't really the issue, what is needed is supervision by someone with the power to block you! Not really involving oneself in the content dispute, just reminding everyone to follow the rules and helping to point out where the real problems actually are occurring.) That or a whole corps of people like dear ArielGold, who seems to be able to calm down anyone. I'd give you another fire extinguisher barnstar, but you already got one of those! How about a beer instead? Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. By the way, the Ag and Eq projects have both thought about creating a literal "barn" star. How does one get a new barnstar on the list?

Clarification

I didn't mean "spam" in the sense of linkspam or promotional spam; I suppose I should have referred to it as "litter" or something less confusing. As I said, I already read your comment on APK's page. I hope this clarifies. Rachel Summers (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been in the least bit confused, I know exactly what you meant. Dreadstar † 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IP user impersonating you

FYI, you will want to re-blank and protect User talk:77.102.215.120. - JNighthawk (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for giving this user a timeout. Its actions were getting out of hand. Jonneroo (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Banning of 67.36.182.26

Could you explain something to me? Today three or four editors chased this vandal all over the site, reverting his damage as fast as possible, while he happily ignored all "last" warnings. I reported him to the virtually empty 'Administrator intervention against vandalism' page, and yet it took almost 10 minutes before you finally blocked him. By that time he had done another 15 (or so) disruptive edits.

I don't want to moan about the time delay, but I completely fail to understand how such a determined vandal (almost 30 edits in 15 minutes), who clearly sees vandalizing Wikipedia as some kind of game, gets away with a block of a mere 31 hours. Are there rules for the amount of damage a vandal does and the time his/her block lasts? Or is it up to the administrator's discretion? I find a 31 hour block for this blatant vandalism almost a joke. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking YOU but I do wonder why I bother chasing after vandals if they get away so lightly. He'll be back tomorrow night. Rien (talk\stalk)  10:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and the barn star. It is much appreciated. Rien (talk\stalk)  21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the AWB stuff. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 11:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Un-protection of a page

Could you please unprotect Selena Gomez as the expiry date didn't work, and it still cannot be edited as an I.P. ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It was set to expire tomorrow, the 17th of March, at 9:21pm. I went ahead and unprotected it early. Let me know if the vandalism starts again... Dreadstar † 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh ya... I thought today was the 26 of March... Sorry for that... But you are great, and really fast at helping users! ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 18:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to have to do this, but see Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#User:Dreadstar. --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright. I wasn't involved in the dispute and was protecting the page from your edit warring, asking you to work it out on the talk page instead. But apparently, you'd rather attack me than try to work it out with the editor you're in a dispute with, even though you expressed your support for my actions at the time: [30]. I'd suggest again that you work it out with Montana on the talk page, edit warring is unacceptable, as are personal attacks against another editor, both of which you were engaging in and were the reasons why I was asked to intervene. Dreadstar † 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

You were recently involved in discussions on the article Order of the Arrow. Some of the issues brought up then were not resolved. If you are interested, please participate in the continued discussion at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Safeguarded material. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Curry

--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)== Curry Fries? ==

Just curious but where are you from that has curry fries at the pub, are you old enough to go to a pub?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, no harm intended, just the impression I got I guess. Where do you get curry fries at a pub though? I have traveled much of America and Canada and I do not think curry is worth mentioning in that section. Thanks--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, still seems like more of a novelty, not really American or Candian, plus your two citations, one is of an irish pub fare, and the other one is from a UK website. The section of the article is about american and candian pub food.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That page has nothing to do with fact tags. Please review Wikipedia policy on citations.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on adding a citation from a UK website to the section of the article that is clearly about American and Canadian pub fare.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please give examples plus Tag bombing is the practice of adding tags to an article not as a well-intended request for clarification The only reason I add tags is a well-intended request for clarification.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Curry

Thanks for changing the pub grub page. I think that makes more sense.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding:Un-protection of a page

It was a mistake, I think it will have to be protected until say mid-May now, god one vandal took it upon himself to do five edits of removal of content in five minutes, yes it was reverted, but that is a lot of vandalism in a short period of time. ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! You are such an amazing help that you deserve this:
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For helping remove chances of vandalism by protecting a page that needed it! ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know this is going to sound silly, but I still have to ask you this. Is there a way to semi-protect your userpage from anonymous vandalism? Hope that you have a fantastic holiday weekend. --Candy156sweet (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User 70.108.92.126 unblock request

I have looked over his history and I really can't find exactly what the block is for (the personal attacks). As far as I can see, he's being blocked mainly for removing warnings from his talk page, which while I don't like he is allowed to do under policy.

He's not the ideal editor, but I think he is trying to contribute constructively. Can you illuminate anything here? Daniel Case (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If I might chime in, please note that this user just had one of his sockpuppets blocked. See User talk:70.108.133.61 and view the evidence. Isn't circumventing a block a factor to be considered in this case? But even if not, there is much more evidence that I would be happy to share if needed. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a "heads up" that your block is being circumvented yet again. See User talk:70.108.115.143. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the orginal block wasnt justified. I asked for it 2 be reviewed and was ignored.
The orig block said I was deleting my discussion page to hide warnings which isnt true. I linked comments & replies to where they r on poster's disc page.
All my edits have edit summaried. Im not vandalising wiki. 70.108.115.143 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your block was reviewed and Denied, please see it again Here

Quoting from the talk page:

After further review and being contacted by AgnosticPreachersKid, I have understood the block. I will not be unblocking at this time.

Your edits on the whole have, indeed, shown a desire to be constructive. However, I suggest that when it expires you take the following suggestions to heart:

* Stop using text speak. We don't write articles in it, and as yet we don't have a Textspeak Wikipedia (you could certainly try to start one, but then again we don't have one in 1337, either). It doesn't in any way make people take you seriously, and there is no space limitation on what you can type.

* If someone asks you to stop posting to their talk page, stop posting to their talk page. It's that simple.

* Even saying things like "Don't be an ass" counts as personal attacks.

* Massive reorgs of the main section in a biography of living persons article should only be done after building consensus on the talk page, not with the idea in mind, boldness notwithstanding.

Happy editing when you get back. Daniel Case

Momusufan (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

81.145.242.24

Hi Dreadstar. IPs in the range 81.145.240-242 are dynamically assigned to a new person every 24 hours. They can also be changed by the individual within minutes. Overall we get a lot of good edits from this range, and if you don't mind I'd like to shorten this block to something more effective. The editor you were trying to block will have a new IP tomorrow. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a soft block, so users can still create accounts from that one ip address, no range block was done afaict. I did a longer block because this was the second bock this month alone, and there is a long string of warnings over the last two months. I'll leave it up to your discretion, feel free to shorten if you like. Dreadstar † 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Any block over about 24 hours is likely to affect a good faith user, and definitely someone who hasn't used the IP before. So the warnings might as well have been placed at User_talk:127.0.0.1 for all the effect they'll have had on users of that IP. You might as well pick any other random IP within that range to block, or block the whole lot, but as you say this wasn't done. I'll shorten it accordingly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I say, you might as well block the whole lot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Salary has the picture covering some of the text. Do you know how to fix? Thanks--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The words viewed as the from the first line of the second paragraph--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Cougarafter.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Cougarafter.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

pls tell Ag 2 stop following me

Hello,
Its Wed, block is done.
Ag ( User talk: AgnosticPreachersKid ) is following me ...y? He said 2 leave him alone, dont post on his page ( deleted what I posted on his page then reported me for doing the same 2 my page ),etc.
So pls tell him 2 do the same: Dont follow me on wiki. Thx. 70.108.122.159 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is back to making the same edit that is against consensus. There is no following since I already watch the page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page

Could you please copy what was here to here? I need to know what was there. ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And could you move this page to here over the redirect? ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

on Elisabeth Hasselbeck

==Editing== There are certain rules to be followed when editing Wikipedia articles, and one of those is Consensus. The edits you're attempting to make are being contested by other editors, so instead of revert warring, you should discuss your proposed changes to the article on the article's talk page. I would also suggest creating an account per Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Dreadstar † 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no contesting. Flyer was the sole person who didnt like it.
Ag is lying. He didnt edit that page til he encountered me. Now he too has stepped in. 70.108.122.159 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Watchlist rodeo, calf roping, and steer wrestling. The PETA crowd is back. Two or three of us are watching and reverting, but, well, you know what happens with these things. Prefer to have admins on this sooner than later. May want to have several admins watching. FYI, as you patrol the history list, note that assorted wonderful Wikiproject Equine members are also patrolling and reverting. Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits like these: [31][32][33][34] are purely vandalism. The user was recently given a final warning so I've blocked the IP. Dreadstar † 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Restored some OK stuff that got bleeped in the big fix. Montanabw(talk) 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-check an IP?

Dreadstar, will you see if further action is indicated for this edit regarding User_talk:65.27.38.203, whom you have warned previously? Antelantalk 08:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of [35]. Dreadstar † 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Thank you. Antelantalk 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnings to Stanley011

I am nearing my wits end. I have wasted an entire morning dealing with Stanley011. In my opinion, he has met the definition of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors due to tendentious editing, lack of verifiability, and rejecting community input. Furthermore, it has reached a point "that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles" (quoting here from "Campaign to drive away productive contributors").

I am completely exhausted with him. He is not a vandal, so I can't file an WP:AIV complaint. He does seem to be coming around with regard to getting community input, because at my behest, he just this morning posted his very first entry to Talk:Elisabeth Hasselbeck. However, he continues to edit the article tendentiously without waiting for community input, and by editing tendentiously on the talk page itself. He seems more respectful of the need for verifiability, but now is beginning to take it to a ridiculous extreme (e.g., claiming that Hasselbeck's calling Rev. Wright a racist isn't verifiably controversial). What do you suggest? I can't waste any more time on him. He's driving me away from Wikipedia. Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


My RfA

I can has mop?
 Hi Dreadstar/Archive06! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again!
- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)