User talk:Dreadstar/Archive09

TM
Here are the diffs you requested,, , that's three reverts in 24 hours to the same article. WP:CON is no excuse for edit warring or violating WP:3RR - instead work it out on the talk page per Consensus. That goes for both of you. Dreadstar ☥  01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the diffs you provided was a simple grammatical issue so would not call it a revert. The other two had consensus.  Thanks you for the comment and I will be more careful.  Please join us on the talk page if you are interested. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, grammatical or not, all three of those diffs are reverts per Reverting, any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. I realize your edits were in good faith and appreciate your comment about being careful - always a good thing during disputes!  Dreadstar  ☥  01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TM dispute
<copied The discussion is ongoing here Talk:Transcendental_Meditation. Your comments / views would be appreciated. As this seems to be an ongoing issue further measures may be required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a closer look later today. From a quick scan, it looks like the edit warring has stopped,  and there's a heated discussion on the talk page.  Might want to be cautious about making accusations of vandalism, vandalism is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."  Unless there's clear-cut evidence of a deliberate attempt to compromise WP, such accusations can backfire on the accuser as being incivility, personal attacks or attempts to game the system.


 * Another continual problem on those article talk pages are the constant comments about other editors having a COI, these should be handled per COI, taking the concerns to user talk pages, filing an RFC, a Mediation Request, or even an Request for Arbitration, which I think has been suggested by many of the contributors on the TM articles, including those being accused of having a COI.


 * Personally, I have no desire to engage in the TM dispute from a content perspective, but if there are any other specific behavioral or procedural issues you're concerned about, let me know. I have your talk page watchlisted, so please respond here so we can keep the discussion in one place.  Thanks! Dreadstar  ☥  21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks having someone look into COI would be a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IP tag
Hi, I just opened Wikipedia without logging in and found a "new message" which turned out to be from you to IP 88.110.170.214, dated April 2008. I will find out when I post this message whether that is my IP, but in any case I am not guilty (and no-one else can access my pc). For my usual style, see edits under my username, Kirker. Regards ~ Peter Kirker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.170.214 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

on Obama and Yoanis
I started a section in Talk:Yoani_Sánchez. In case you are interested.  franklin  23:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Footvolley
 

Hi. First of all, thanks and congratulations for your efforts in improving the article on Footvolley. You are doing what no one (including me, of course) was capable (or worried enough) to do in like four years.

I come here to point what I perceive as localized problems in some of your edits in that articles, but in no way this criticism should be views as referring to the essence, rather than to the exception of your voluntary work there.

I believe your tendency for mass reverts is detrimental. I have been removing from the current article's version content that has been gone unsourced for more than one year. It's bad for our readers, as well as for our reputation to be publishing such material. Not to mention this goes against our polices. While working to find sources for material currently hiddeen in the article's history is a commendable action, reverting the removal of unsourced material from the current version is not a wise thing to do.

One can always use this history to save previously unsourced material one finds source for. There's no reason for us to be publishing usourced material this long.

I'm sure you understand the revert of removal of unsourced material may be seen as a bad decision under the eyes our policy. I hope you will be able to continue your great work without resorting to such acts.

Yours --Damiens.rf 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:BOP recommends that editors be given "time to provide references," even if not putting forth the extra effort to "make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them". Since I was obviously working on the article, actively engaged in finding sources and copyediting, these BOP recommendations should have been followed. And no, I disagree with your assertion that the reversion of the material in this particular circumstance was bad.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please respond here to keep the thread in one place, I've got this page watchlisted. Dreadstar  ☥  20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors have been given time to provide references. The article has been tagged as lacking sources since November 2006. --Damiens .rf 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't given any time at all. And I recommend that editors find sources before completely removing all article content as was done in this case. Dreadstar  ☥  20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we have to give time to all editors to try, one by one, we will never remove unsourced content. I don't know why do you object the removal of old content tagged as son since 2006. The content is available at the article's history for you to work on. The content does not need to be on the current version of the article for you to fix it. --Damiens.rf 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it troubling to see a relatively harmless article completely stripped of all content without any hint that the editor who accomplished this feat did any research at all to try and find sources, then that same editor edit wars to keep the material out after another editor comes in, restores the material, and is actively and obviously finding a large number of sources. And what exactly was the great rush to keep the content out of the article at the exact moment I was sourcing and copyediting, especially considering that it had been sitting there for four years?  If it had been a WP:BLP, I would have pulled the unsourced content into a sandbox, but in this case there was no reason not to edit the material in place - it was easy to find plenty of sources connecting Footvolley to the people mentioned in the article.  That's the core of my objection.  Dreadstar  ☥  17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While important, WP:BLP is not the only valid reason to remove unsourced content. As an example (and I'm not necessarily saying this is the case here), Wikipedia is often used to promote subjects or companies and people related to a given subject. Just as you are troubled with the way I work, I also had a hard time to understand your mass reverts, that readded unsourced content and undid other cosmetic edits. But I understand there are a lot of people working on this project and we can't simply expect them all to work the way we would. --Damiens .rf 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seth Material article
The editor Verbal has started attacking the Seth Material article again. He has been rolling back all of my edits, except some edits that I made to please him. He has taken the position that the article is too big and needs to be cut, so he's started cutting portions out of it. He keeps complaining that there are not enough references in the article, so I added references, but he rolled them back because I added a small amount of material. Is it possible that one editor can dictate that an article not be developed further? It makes no sense to me. I hope you'll stop by the article and participate. Thanks.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world...
I'd be on wikibreak and would not need to be making any contributions on-wiki whatsoever till my wikibrak is no longer necessary...alas, back to reality. :S I've kept the notice up as it is likely I will be suddenly disappearing for a period of time as a result of RL matters (and possibly might not have internet access), so I'm trying to complete priority matters before then, and don't want my disappearance to appear abrupt. Sorry for the confusion!! Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot; in response to your comment: I am concerned I won't have the time to see a whole case through, and on top of that, my interactions with him may have been too limited to warrant being the filer of a case, even though others might disagree on that secondary point. If an editor who has been more involved in conflict with him wishes to file a case, and has the time for it, I'd definitely assist them in framing the case - they're welcome to email me (but of course, must show the extent of their interactions with him with diffs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case
The Arbs will read al the evidence in a case, and if they feel it necessary can sanction anyone even if they are not a named party. The main reason to name someone now would probably be to make sure they get notified as to the outcome.

I was going to say that I didn't think that as a clerk I had anything to say about COI, but on reflection my opinion, and it's only my personal opinion, is that the time for that would be after the case is closed, as the decisions may clarify any COI issues to do with TM. And of course we do like experts editing articles if they follow our guidelines and policies. But that is entirely up to you. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey
Thanks for the help on Vic Mackey, that was one of those edit wars that came out of nowhere. Some people just love their big piles of unreferenced trivia, I guess. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, although it looks like Blueboy96 already took care of it! Dreadstar  ☥  04:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey (yet again)
Sorry to bother you again. Since the Vic Mackey article is semi-protected, has now appeared (after being dormant for over a year) to reinstate the same trivia section. I'm not going to edit war over it, but it seems awfully suspicious to me. What do you think? Dayewalker (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence
Hello Dreadstar. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1500 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey
let me just hop on my wiki account. Trivia is going on this page weather you like it or not. So get over it and quit crying 3ag. 69.22.184.49 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: your revert
Here. Does the article linked mention Muhammad al-Durrah? No. The connection is in the mind of the editor who placed it there and based on his OR conclusion that this recent incident somehow means the conspiracy theories surrounding Durrah's death are justified. Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Please revert your reinstatement of this edit. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 15:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please re-read TALK, specifically:
 * "Refactoring for relevance: Archiving material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to move such threads to an archive page. It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion."
 * Please respond here for convenience, I've got your talk page watchlisted. Dreadstar  ☥  15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For your handling of the off-topic discussion at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah incident. From now on, I'll archive off-topic comments, rather than deleting them, since, as you suggested, it seems to minimize offense and the tendency toward edit-warring. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 08:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the purpose
I think I agree with you in that I feel the user page is overly soapy. I think they need to tone it down. Discussion with the user might be the way to go. Unfortunately, discussions where emotions are very strong tend to be non productive. If someone better with words than I could just put it the right way. . . . I understand where they are coming from and I understand your insistence that it be removed. What I don't see is a meeting of the minds where this is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever, it's not a WP:USERBOX issue for WP:MFD, it's a WP:SOAP issue in my humble opinon. Dreadstar  ☥  22:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to deal with the rather large number of userpages that could be seen to suffer from the same problems? Unomi (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dreadstar  ☥  22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * here is one. Unomi (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we start with the one originally commented on, then I'll be happy to move right on up the field with the rest. Dreadstar  ☥  23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the several other users with this same comment on their user pages. I don't remember all of them. Here's a start:  Breein1007 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never forget anything, Breein1007. Dreadstar  ☥  00:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool... Breein1007 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The next step is for someone to start an MFD and inform the interested parties. For reasons that are probably obvious; I can't initiate it right at the moment. You should feel free to do so. – xeno talk 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks so much! Dreadstar  ☥  00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the poking
 Unomi (talk) has invited to smoke a peace pipe together! Smoking peace pipes promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by offering someone else a peace pipe, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend who just likes to smoke.

Spread the peace by adding to someone's talk page! You can use a parameter to insert the name of the recipient and add your own text to the message with a second. Smoking this wiki-peace pipe does not affect your health.

Unomi (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

need an independent view
Hey, I hope you have been doing good things. I have suggested another user's comment may indicate anti-Semitism, and am now being accused of libel for it. I often respect your way of handling conflicts, and wonder if you'd provide an independent view here but also go to talk: Christ myth theory and just use your "find" function for "holocaust" and see how often it comes up, and how. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You can now ignore the above. But I hope you won't mind helping out with something else: You should care - a LOT - about the discussion goin on here:  and in the following section, which I fear may be a real assault on NPOV (or, an opportunity to clear up a longstanding ambiguity in the policy). At least, I think your experience and wisdom is sorely needed in these discussions.

There is a user Zaereth who on his user page states clearly that he rejects NPOV and wishes to change it. he is now appealing to books on writing and style to support changes he wishes to make to the policy that elevate "facts" which I see as a move towards saying "Wikipedia is about truth, rather than verifiability"

I think this is a core issue. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Thanks - I appreciate it. While I was sleeping there was a small debate about whether there really is an actual policy on "facts and opinions" - my own view is no, there is only NPOV. I just added a few comments summarizing my own view. The discussion has really expanded and you do not need to read it all but you need to know Zaereth's view and Quack's view - I summarize and respond to them here; Crum and Elin have also criticized their interpretations of NPOV. There has been a lot of discussion and Slim Virgin has been doing a LOT of editing, mostly I think to trim the fat from what has become a bloated policy page, but i think she has also been trying to take on board comments by Crum and others like Philip Baird Shearer and David Souza. I believe these edits and the debate over "facts and opinions" will remain hot for at least another week and definitely would appreciate your involvement and judgment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on my edits to No original research
Hi,

In regards to your note, as I understand edit warring, it is repeatedly editing rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. I don't know if you saw, but I have been making every effort to engage in a discussion to reach consensus. I have tried to initiate discussion with a proposal on the policy's talk page, through WP:CYCLE, comments in edit summaries and notes on the reverting users talk pages. There has been no response on the appropriate talk page. What more can I do?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting
 :Hi, In regards to your note, as I understand edit warring, it is repeatedly editing rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. I don't know if you saw, but I have been making every effort to engage in a discussion to reach consensus. I have tried to initiate discussion with a proposal on the policy's talk page, through WP:CYCLE, comments in edit summaries and notes on the reverting users talk pages. There has been no response on the appropriate talk page. What more can I do?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is repeatedly reverting without gaining consensus for your changes, this is edit warring even if you're making good faith efforts to discuss your changes on the talk page. When edits are reverted, then gaining active consensus for your changes is absolutely necessary, especially when editing Wikipedia Policies. What you stated here is incorrect, receiving what you perceive to be a lack of response from the editors reverting you is no excuse for edit warring; continuing to revert as you have been doing on WP:NOR will only lead to your being blocked.


 * My suggestion is to stop reverting, and continue to make a case for your proposed changes on the talk page; start an WP:RFC, engage a mediator or take other steps as outlined in Dispute resolution - but continuing on your current path will only lead to getting blocked.


 * For convenience, please respond here, I've got your talk page watchlisted. Dreadstar  ☥  08:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I replied to your comments here--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What rush to fast archive?
You've set Muhammed al-Durrah to fast archive, thereby concealing the strong objection numerous editors have to the pro-Zionist bias apparent. That's hardly a route to good articles, it looks more like an attempt to entrench POV. 94.116.0.198 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Archiving is a routine process. People have difficulty loading pages when they get too long, or negotiating them when there are too many threads. Nothing is 'concealed", it's all in the archives and I'd suggest attempting to avoid ascribing such motivations as you have in the above.  As for proper use of an article talk page, see WP:TALK and WP:SOAP.  Dreadstar  ☥  21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to Atkins diet.
Perhaps I did overtag, but editing an article to fix an issue is better than reverting an edit filled with otherwise good changes. Please revert only as a last resort and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 00:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to be more cautious about your edits, in this one you removed several sections, including 'see also' and 'References". Go a little slower with your editing, the overtagging far outweighed any other changes made in that first edit.  Dreadstar  ☥  01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I see where I made the coding error. Appreciate the help and attention! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The anon IP did indeed return to make the same uncited, POV/OR and WP:TONE-vio changes, here. What's more, he blanked his talk page in an attempt to remove the warnings and requests.


 * He also continues removing the completely appropriate "unreferenced" tag at Dubtitle.


 * He will not discuss, does not seem to want to understand Wikipedia policy, and seems only interested in adding unsubstantiated / inaccurate hype. Please help. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate the help; there's nothing wrong with a moderate approach. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do!--Tenebrae (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My report on a vandalism
I made a report as follow but now just found it has been deleted by you. Have you dealt with it already or had some reason else? Thanks. Lvhis (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

196.216.59.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • &submit=Resolve RDNS • trace • .html RBLs • / http • block user • block log) In the last two days repeatedly did multiple vandal edits in article Huaihai Campaign using some totally irrelevant words such as "Chinese noodle party", etc. On April 21, 2010 in article Muttahida Qaumi Movement even used some dirty words. . Lvhis (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed the report as stale, the IP had not edited in over five hours, and per WP:AVI#3, "Unregistered users must be active now". Let me know if the vandalism continues on a daily basis and I'll take another look. Dreadstar  ☥  20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. Lvhis (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello and thank you for removing vandalism from my talk page. I thought about leaving it but the page looks better this way. Loves Macs  (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I don't care if that edit is left in the history. Thanks again. Loves  Macs  (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Little help
Hey, Dread. Long time, no talk. Well anyway; I figured you could help me out a lil'. Can you delete this and this for me? I have no need for them anymore. • GunMetal Angel  08:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. Good to hear from you, hope all is well. Dreadstar  ☥  15:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 21:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mo no so ck  18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

''Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)''

IP vandal - 67.87.198.243
Thank you for the block of 67.87.198.243‎ and semi-protection of Forest Hills – 71st Avenue! After their previous block expired, my watchlist filled up with their new vandalism. &lt;Sigh&gt; Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help; that was an ip sock evading a block by hopping addresses, as you reported here. Dreadstar  ☥  00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

New York City Board of Higher Education
Just FYI, the Board of Higher Education was not part of, or in any way connected to, the city's Board of Education. It was a state agency created in 1926 to coordinate higher education in the city, and was the precusor to the Board of Trustees of the City University of New York. I've corrected the redirect you created and inserted some new material into the CUNY & Laguardia CC articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was researching that last night, got sidetracked. Glad to see it expanded and corrected, I was surprised we didn't have an article on it already.  Dreadstar  ☥  15:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for helping me with those protected articles! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help - a very determined IP hopper, that one. Dreadstar  ☥  20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi Dreadstar! I have a bit of a problem. As I was logging into Wikipedia, I noticed that there was a message on the IP page: Someone apparently had been using this IP to vandalize an article. Is there anything I can do to correct this? I have been editing on here for almost four years! I don't want my account to be associated with vandalism. I have never had this happen before. I don't anonymously edit articles at all. Thank you in advance! --Candy156sweet (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, or not
Come on, Dreadstar, to accuse somebody of dogmatism and to say that this wastes time hardly constitutes a personal attack. Now, if our ever-irritating IP had followed this up by saying that his antagonist was full of shit or had the attention-span of a fruitfly or was the offspring of a hamster, this would be. Further, if you block somebody, you normally add one of these to his talk page. ("His" used deliberately: I sense that the great majority of blocked editors are male.) Do please at least add the template. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a personal attack, period. In this case I chose a personal message rather than WP:DTTR.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by your moving the discussion here, but if here is where you want it.... Whether or not it was a personal attack is a matter of dispute. You think it is, I don't. The personal message is of course fine, but it does not let the blocked person appeal the block. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The user has received several templates showing how to how to appeal a block; but in light of your request, I've added a formal template. In no way was the user prevented from appealing the block.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A favor
If you want that I leave alone the user pages please help me with a thing, delete the proposal of merge, delete all this and I leave in peace the page of this users, a deal of friends. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.30.52 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Trek and all that
Would you consider mentally archiving our recent discussions and the pair of us start afresh? I was editing while up pretty late last night and was probably not in the best of form.

With regards a few matters;
 * Firstly, genuinely didn't wish or intend to out anyone. I changed my own username for the sake of anonymity after all. Probably should have just retired my account completely and started afresh but there you go. I won't repeat what little I can remember of the oversighted material.
 * I was lazy with that hidden message after the episode count. I reverted to replace a fact tag and didn't bother taking out what was (even for me) a bit of a cheeky hidden message.
 * I probably should have just slept on the article, thought about the expansion of the parody and fan sections and edited them today. The extra parody information was, in retrospect, reasonably easy for me to Google for.

So, sorry about the fuss. I know the internet would be nothing without Trekkers/Trekkies furiously formatting angry messages to each other, but I hope we can let this be our last battlefield. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! Thank you; what an absolutely delightful message to receive.  My apologies to you as well, for the fuss and the added hyperbole... :)  You're an excellent editor, we're both obviously Trek fans, and I look forward to working with you now that our amok time has ended.  Live long and prosper...and happy editing! 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comet
I'm in agreement with your changes to Comet (programming) and reverted to your version of the lead because I don't think the reasoning given in this edit summary stands up. Just wanted to see if you had further input, Dreadstar  ☥  01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, thanks for the support. The editor you reverted has a long history of attempts to prevent that article from saying anything, but the advice in WP:NAD directly contradicts his preferred approach. I'm too tired of dealing with him to spend much effort on it (he excised literally weeks of my effort from Wikipedia way back when), and he has more time to spend removing my words than I have time to spend improving the article and reverting, but I think policy is so clear on the particular disputed wording in the edit you reverted that he has no legs to stand on there. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 05:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion help
Since I'm not at all in the mood to go through deletion policies, I want to ask directly can you delete Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Gunmetal Angel due to it being created out of vandalism by an IP adress? — Thanks. • GunMetal Angel  16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, definitely an attack page and now speedily deleted. Dreadstar  ☥  17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, not so much as an attack as it was complimenting; only cool people are self-righteous and call others "asshole". xD — thanks again. • GunMetal Angel  17:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:217.171.129.69
User talk:217.171.129.69 is blocked, by you, for one year for vandalism. I am looking at the edit history and I don't see it. Could you, perhaps, elaborate so I can respond intelligently to the unblock request? Thanks. -- Jayron  32  05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued vandalism shortly after the previous six-month proxy block expired and a very long page of warnings seemed appropriate at the time. If you feel differently, then by all means unblock. The user can create an actual account, only anon editing is disabled.  Dreadstar  ☥  06:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If necessary, please respond here on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted. Dreadstar  ☥  06:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. If the IP isn't currently being used as an open proxy, its quite likely that any individuals using it today aren't the people who vandalized previously. I'll drop a note at WP:OP for them to check it out, if its not an open proxy, I think an unblock should be appropriate. What say you to that plan? -- Jayron  32  06:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan to me! I probably should have had them run another OP check on it again myself, so thanks for doing that!  Dreadstar  ☥  06:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So it shall be written, so it shall be ✅. We'll see what WP:OP turns up.  -- Jayron  32  06:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most excellent! Ye truly be a master of the OP-Hunting!!  Mine eternal thanks are thine!  Dreadstar  ☥  06:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cuomo
Just a note to be cautious about WP:3RR on Andrew Cuomo. Dreadstar ☥  22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have refrained from editing the page, but assure you that I have been acting in good faith, and have requested editor assistance, as well as engaged the article's discussion page. Sinisterminister (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally understand and agree, just a fair note in light of this one. :)  Dreadstar  ☥  22:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you did block him, didn't you?
Sorry; I'd just noted he was a sock and you'd been reverting his edits, so...

I wasn't actually aware you were an admin until I'd reverted it. Half Shadow  22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh, nothing to be sorry about, you did absolutely the right thing! I appreciate the help!  You beat me to the revert by a millisecond....thanks! Let me know if I can ever be of help...any friend of the lovely and wonderful Alison is a friend of mine...hair-trigger or not.. :D Dreadstar  ☥  22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On a good day, I'm sightly faster than God; on a bad day, I'm slightly slower. I've been mistaken for a bot sometimes. I scare people. I like it. Half  Shadow  22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! I like it too...nice ta meet ya, HalfShadow! Dreadstar  ☥  22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and Cheers!
What an incredible learning experience this has been for me, largely watching from the sidelines. You have scored yourself an[other] admirer, for sure!! Sinisterminister (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thank you, that's one of the most awesome compliments I've ever received!  I'm glad to have been able to assist!  Dreadstar  ☥  19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Query on csd procedure
Hi, I hope you don't mind - I picked you randomly from an admin list - I've was wondering if you could give me a second opinion regarding speedy deletion. I recently listed the album Pulse_(Thomas_Giles_album) for speedy deletion (as it hasn't been released yet and the reviews regarding it are not RS, so it doesnt meet GNG) under A9 db-album. However the deletion was rejected as the album's artist had an existing page (See User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ) and the description of the A9 asks for no notability AND no article (copied below). This seems to make no sense to me as the next sentence states that the standard is lower than notability.. Am I interpreting this wrongly? or should the 'and' below be changed to an 'or'? A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings).
 * An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist. This is distinct from questions of  verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.  This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles

I'd be grateful for an opinion, cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, it looks like a good keep for the article. It passes speedy A9 because the artist has an article, and with the sources added, it appears to pass WP:NSONG as well.  Dreadstar  ☥  17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 89.110.241.124
Hi Dreadstar! I wanted to ask you to reconsider the 31-hour block of IP 89.110.241.124. But for my mistaken application of two warnings to his talk page, he might not now be blocked. You can find my discussion with him, and my mea culpa, here. You can also find my discussion with the recent changes patroller that reported him to AIV here. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. It wasn't just the warnings, but the pattern of disruptive edits.  I'll unblock and you give them a hand.  Dreadstar  ☥  18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dreadstar. I’ve already placed a welcome message on his talk page along with a reminder about using edit summaries. I’ll add a note about being available to assist him should he have any questions. Thanks again. —  Spike Toronto  18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)