User talk:Dreadstar/UTDEHA2

Welcome!

Archives and sandboxes My articles Awards received Dreadstar's Archives Dreadstar's Sandboxes In recognition of your efforts on Wikipedia and for dedication to law oriented edits, I, Cdogsimmons, award you the Society Barnstar. 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 Award! The Vandal Eliminator Award * I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! RL Barnstar The Real Life Barnstar - For reporting a situation that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! Thank you. +Hexagon1 (t) Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +Hexagon1 (t) Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, please don't report me Mr. Thoughtpolice-man! :) +Hexagon1 Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili talk

New comments below this section

Thanks! Dreadstar †

so is this where I can send you a comment? I know nothing! Anyway... you and littleoliveoil are doing a GREAT job on Yoani Sanchez's page... thanks a ton!!!!!! -- from yoaniedits -- Yoaniedits (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Veronika Zemanová

I don't understand why you undid your speedy on this article. Veronika Zemanová is not a Playboy Playmate, but merely a model who has appeared in various Playboy Special Editions, not even the magazine itself. As such, she clearly would not qualify under WP:PORNBIO, and I see no suggestion of significance enabling the article to survive a speedy proposal. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If I remember policy correctly, which I may not, if the article asserts notability then it passes (and of course has to be supported by sources). Might be an AfD candidate though. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look at this one. Given the conflicts that I and other editors had with one contributor, deletion won't be uncontroversial, so I'll take it to AFD. Since that contributor's managed to get himself blocked for a week, though, I'm going hold off for a short time so he'll have a chance to participate in the discussion if he sticks around. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

so... where's that AfD now ? Wefa (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy/guideline talk page

I can understand your good faith change, but your edit summary is incorrect. As WhatamIdoing has pointed out there was in fact a consensus for the change, it is SlimVirgin who changed from the only version that had consensus agreement. I suggest from now on that threads be allowed to work their way through a bit longer before you declare a consensus. The archived discussion What points to occurred for almost a month and was detailed to every aspect of the policy page. I and What were both involved in it; I am intimately aware of what on that page had consensus and to SlimVirgin's history of reverting new consensus' because he/she prefers "status quo" and wording "with long standing history" both of which are illegitimate debating points against a new consensus. That is why I reverted him/her.Camelbinky (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You need solid and wide consensus to make changes to a Policy page, and I don't see where consensus was reached for the change. SlimVirgin reverted the change and I back her reversion because I haven't seen the "new" consensus for it, nor is there consensus now - the "new" wording is inferior to the original. I remember discussing that same wording months ago and we decided on it then, I haven't seeen anything since that time. Please continue this discussion on the policy's talk page, not here. Let's keep it all in one place. And, just fyi, SlimVirgin is a she. Dreadstar ☥ 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dont really care if she is a she, that has no bearing on anything and I didnt really care to learn that. What provided the link to the relevant discussion. You were not involved in it, dont know what discussion you were involved with, but it was a wide-reaching discussion involving the entire page, it rewrote alot, and Slim was warned then (and has been warned at other places) for reverting changes after we came to a consensus. It was a wide-ranging consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly involved now. And I really don't appreciate your rude comments, I suggest you try to restrain yourself. And you certainly shouldn't try to blame others for your own rude behavior. Dreadstar ☥ 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Portmanteaus

I'm not really certain on where I can have this discussion with you, but I would really like your reasoning as to why comments about words being portmanteaus should be put everywhere a word appears to be one regardless of whether or not the information is helpful or too obvious not to already be known by a user. Furthermore a'ight is a contraction not a portmanteau. I feel like you've just come to an arbitrary decision on this subject and are going to enforce it without a second thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.230.45 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not my position at all, but your removal of the sentence from the article with the reasoning that portmanteau makes Wikipedia sound "pretentious" or "pompous" is something I completely disagree with. Instead of revert warring with multiple editors to remove something you disagree with, you need to discuss it on the article's talk page and find consensus for your disputed change. Go to the article talk pages and discuss it. Dreadstar ☥ 07:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, why don't you explain this edit, I'm very interested in what you were attempting to accomplish with that one, since you have such concerns over how Wikipedia might appear to its readers. Dreadstar ☥ 07:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 20#File:KPCKim.jpg

The image was used for identification of the subject. There are no substantial differences in appearance between the cheerleader image and the crime-fighter image—only clothing change. Lack of this image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the appearance of the character, which is required by our NFC policy. ÷seresin 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I put it up for DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9 Dreadstar ☥ 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File:BG1 cover.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:BG1 cover.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me please

How "remarkable" is sourced. Explain to me please how listing non-notable athletes on a track team can be legitimately explained in any policy herein. Explain to me please how listing Cheerleading as a sport, when the state association responsible for athletics refers to it as a club, and does not recognize it as a sport. Explain to me who "Damon McDaniel" is, and how he's notable. Explain to me how the students in charge of the JROTC, and the JROTC itself (which is present at most every school in the entire country), are notable. Sure, the bomb threat is sourced. I know of approximately 30 schools in my area alone that have received bomb threats and people have been arrested as a result of said threats. They don't make national news, this one didn't either. It was a flash in the pan, notable for a day, at most two. It certainly wasn't nationally notable. It is sourced, so its inclusion is fine. NOTHING else that you claimed was "sourced" had any sources whatsoever. Your edit was clearly in bad faith, and the edit summary disingenuous given the actual edits you made. Furthermore, where did you request semi-protection, so that others could weigh in on the discussion? 99.169.250.133 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see, you were edit warring in order to remove sourced content: [1][2][3], so instead of protecting the article, I could have waited and blocked you instead; which would you prefer? Dreadstar ☥ 03:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer, rather than an obviously upset response, if you'd actually read the reasons why I removed the content in the first place, and explain your reason behind reinserting them. I'd like to think that if you had blocked me for it, you also would have blocked the other user, but you and I both know that wouldn't have happened. Admins around here don't get blocked for anything...more of the same if you ask me. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else, I'm not in the least bit upset. Your removal of sourced content and then edit warring with another editor over that removal, has all the earmarks of vandalism - I revert vandalism and take appropriate actions to make sure it, and any edit warring, stops. Glad to see you've started a discussion on the talk page, you should also consider creating an account. Good luck! Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Earmarks of vandalism does not make something vandalism. Did you even look at what you were reverting? You say it was sourced, I removed ONE sourced bit of material, for a valid reason. You can't honestly believe that high school athletes who win a race, and achieve no other notoriety aside from that race, merit listing in an encyclopedia. You no doubt realize that "remarkable" is a pov word. Just because your reverted, doesn't make the edits right. The edits I made were absolutely not vandalism. I provided concise and policy driven reasoning for each of my edits. Just because something is sourced, does not make it notable. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)