User talk:Dreadstar/UTDEHA1

Archives and sandboxes

Defender

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making Battle of Washita River a good WP:NPOV (instead of WP:SOAP) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. Yksin 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The royal "We"

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

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

Indeed. We are well aware of the Royal We. Henceforths, ye shall call me by mine rightful name...Lord Dreadstar, master of my domain...I was also thinking of them being the 'toddler' wee...wee wee wee, all the way home...;) You crack me up too...:-D Dreadstar † 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We curtsy to your Royal Highness, M'Lord, and we just must say your ascot is most fetching! We are exceedingly pleased. I therefore, hereby award you the title of "Lord Dreadstar, Master of my domain, Earl of Fashion. And should you need any assistance, at any time, we would be most honored if we could assist you. ^Lady♥Ariel 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Ariel is most pleased with your approval! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thou art most gracious, M'Lady Ariel. I most happily accept the title thou hast bestowed upon my humble self. Thine heart is truly placed in the most appropriate position, at the very core of thine name, for all to behold! Mine ascot is most pleased to have been the focus of your divine attention, and mine sword is most jealous...!

I am yours to command, shouldest thou have need of mine prowess with the edit summary of justice...! - Lord Dreadstar, Master of My Doman and Earl of Fashion 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, lol, I just have to get out of the whole "in voice" thing for a second to just tell you that I rarely truly laugh in RL when reading anything online, or watching TV or what have you, but honestly, your last reply made me literally and figuratively, laugh out loud.

I simply could not be more amused!

And seriously, I meant it, although I doubt there's anything you'd ever need silly little insignificant me for, I'm more than happy to assist in any way you need, and I'll certainly take you up on your offer of assistance should I ever run into a wall that is only permeable by the Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. Your most humble servant, ^Lady♥Ariel 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, Ariel♥Gold! That is one of the finest compliments I've received..it made me laugh out loud with delight! It's actually kinda rare that I can use my sense of humor on Wikipedia, in RL I'm known for my prowess with the dagger of delight and the lance of laughter...;) Methinks I have the comedian bug.

I must admit that most of mine "thee's and thou's" are from The Mighty Thor- god of thunder, and Sir Mandorallan- the mightiest knight on life! And thou certainly are not silly nor insignificant, my sweet golden one..thou art a pleasure to hammer-down the vandals with!

Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

.......(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!).....

Thou doth maketh Ariel Laugheth! ^{Lady Ariel♥Humble servant} 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....I'm not saying I'd like to build a summer home here, but the trees are actually quite lovely.

NOR

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

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

User:Dgxf

I reported him because a duck test reveals that he is a sock of Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned by ArbCom for tendentious editing on the Anaheim Hills page. It was originally for a year, but it was extended to indef. Per WP:BAN, he has no right to even edit, and can be blocked on sight. Blueboy 96 05:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... he created the Anaheim Hills, California, (Anaheim) article as well--as I understand it, it can be speedied per G5. Blueboy 96 05:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem--where am I supposed to report it, though? Was wondering because there are several LTA pages which tell us to report socks to AIV as soon as it's obvious who they are (JB196 and SummerThunder immediately come to mind). Blueboy 96 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go ... JB196, SummerThunder and Verdict. Blueboy 96 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in

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

Thankee!

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

Patrol request

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

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

Just for the sake of authenticity! NPOV and all that! Montanabw^(talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Just don't ask me to look..! <Dreadstar covers his eyes>. Dreadstar † 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit to WTB

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

That's a very skewed view of what's been happening. Dreadstar † 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for finding an exact quote to back up a summarization that you reverted twice (after it was inserted by two different editors), and for replacing "fictional" with "narrative", on the grounds that it was a controversial article and I should have all changes pre-approved, and that reverting your reversions was edit-warring. You inserted a line that I specifically said was unacceptable, and I am saying again is unacceptable. Yes, I find this extremely frustrating, especially since I know the moment I touch the article again I will suffer bad consequences. I truly don't understand why a consensus between you and TimidGuy is a consensus despite others strenuous and continuous objections.Kww (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this, you were revert-warring and your statements indicated to me that you were going to continue revert-warring. The blocking admin and the admin who denied your unblock request both agreed with that assessment. Your assertions are way off-base, and misrepresent virtually everything. I suggest you move on. Dreadstar † 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the Bleep

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

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

You're engaging in a revert war over that wording, the wording was added, it was then reverted and taken again to the talk page, and yet still reverted back into the article once again without consensus - that is revert warring. As far scientific consensus, yes I'm sure if the scientific community were polled on this movie there were would indeed be the consensus that some of the aspects of the movie are pseudoscience...but this polling hasn't been done for this movie, there are no sources for it, and so it violates WP:NOR. There are no two ways about it. And please watch who you're calling dense. First, it cuts both ways, and is also an unnecessary, uncivil personal attack. Dreadstar † 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now, you've continued your revert-warring by reverting the addition of a fact tag], which is compounded by your second edit summary that contains WP:CIV uncivil remarks. Not good behavior. Dreadstar † 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, your continued density and refusal to accept the existence of consensus has caused me to lose patience. So, here is the last word: you will not falsely accuse me of edit-warring, you will not make the mistake of thinking I am not aware of every sentence of WP:3RR, and you will not make nonsensical edits to the article. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I've done none of those things and wouldn't do so in any case. So, I guess we're on the same page? Dreadstar † 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to recalculate your reversions, you have three reverts in 24 hours, [1], [2], [3]. The first diff is a revert back to when the lead said scientific consensus, so you reverted back to that. Dreadstar † 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you use that first one in a 3RR report, please clearly label and justify it. I have a hard time seeing that changing to a different sentence that includes the same phrase as a version from 4 months ago constitutes a "revert", and I suspect that a lot of other editors would share my difficulty. Some might even question the motives of someone that would use it in a report.Kww (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Revert, "However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.", so yes, re-adding the same disputed wording, even if it's in a different sentence, ("A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time]") is indeed a revert. I've been burned by that myself - been there done that. Dreadstar † 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help again

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

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

I've remained civil to you

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