User talk:Dreadstar/UTDEHA3

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Archives and 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 †

WorldVentures Revisions

When you get time can you take a look at the WorldVentures page again (particularly the discussion). Due to my newness (I assume) it is rather difficult to get others to respond in a helpful fashion - Since you placed the block I thought you might be willing to glance at the new info. Thanks Crossfiregk (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Crossfiregk[reply]

Block

Thank you for the indef block on User:Carchasefan. Will you also be blocking sock account User:N easter12345? See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N easter12345. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bull! :-D

Thanks for your vandal patrolling! The cattle articles seem to get more than their fair share. Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you! Looks like you and Dana have been really doing some great work on the cattle articles! Dreadstar ☥ 05:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos also due to Richard New Forest on the cattle stuff, but Dana is becoming the new horse goddess of the place! She also did great work on the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy article! Fascinating info. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending me

Thank you so much for reverting this. I really liked it to be removed by an admin rather than me. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 19:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Don't be afraid to remove or archive comments on your own talk page, read through Wikipedia:User pages and WP:TALK for more information. Let me know if there's any further harassment from that IP or others. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also thank you for deleting the edit summary of that ip-editor. ( It was very impolite indeed. ) *** in fact *** ( contact ) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also delete this message forever, please ? Thanking you in anticipation. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 14:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great help. Thank you so much. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 20:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

creeping vandalism

71.72.151.150 (talk · contribs)
I notified the user of an error here while also answering his question. Walter Murch was born in July, not April as the user had written to which he admits that it is vandalism and removed my notice. He has continued to edit (despite saying that he is quiting) without correcting said vandalism. I had waited, allowing good faith, so that he would have that chance to correct it. What should be done? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the latest edits vandalism or otherwise inappropriate? If not, we'll just have to keep an eye on the user's edits. Dreadstar ☥ 17:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've since corrected his edit to 1943 after giving him time (wrong section plus being a falsehood). I'm hoping we can turn him around...not looking to have him blocked. Watching him is good in case he is doing insidious vandalism laced into good hand edits. Thank you for helping keep watch.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Dreadstar ☥ 01:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmazzi

You deleted this [1] and now it's back under a slightly different name [2]. Please speedy the new one and salt both versions. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dreadstar ☥ 21:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You judged it better than I did.

Just wanted to say thanks in the cases of the two reports. I'm still considered about the pattern of editing coming from that IP number. If EVERY user with a nonsense name making nonsense edits and creating a nonsense page were reported no doubt the noticeboard would be overloaded beyond hope (LOL) but I've got both of them on my watchlist! This lousy T-shirt (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I know what you mean...and I'm sure a few that start off as nonsense become sensible editors. :) The IP concerns me too, I'll keep an eye on it too. Gonna have to get more eyes, me thinks.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 06:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Miley vandal

The most common page is her accolades page, but frequently s/he edits her discography, her albums: The Time of Our Lives (EP), Breakout (album) and Can't Be Tamed, and less frequently Hanna Montanna stuff, her singles, Nickelodeon Kids' Awards, Selena Gomez & the Scene and Justin Bieber. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll notify you. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you intended to protect Can't Be Tamed, don't you? ecause it is not protected. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I mistook the indef move protection. Dreadstar ☥ 06:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, could you check out the IP 68.1.186.75 edits on the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders the user has been blocked until february 2 but I am almost certain that the user will return to only vandalise the same article again and harrass users that tells him/her to stop. So please if you could check the users edits out because the Ip continued with harrassments even after being blocked on the talk page. I would prefer a new decision with an indefinite block but its up to your expertise. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the IP user, but we very rarely indefinitely block IP addresses per WP:IPBLENGTH. Let me know if the IP continues to edit disruptively after the current block expires and I'll take a look then. Dreadstar ☥ 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user you just gave a final warning to keeps on reverting back. I would say the only option is to block him.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is now also harassing me on my talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. Let me know if there's further harassment or vandalism. Dreadstar ☥ 20:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More from 24.178.82.194

Almost immediately after the 72hr block you put on 24.178.82.194 expired, they made another disruptive edit (to Supermassive black hole). Stronger measures may be called for. --Sacolcor (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've re-blocked the ip. Dreadstar ☥ 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

I noticed that you semi-protected Atheism, which I think is a very good idea, but you also left pending changes in effect there, which seems to me to be redundant, and simply slows the page down. Might you consider removing pending changes from the page, while of course leaving the semi-protection in effect? Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not sure what the best course is. The sprotection will expire, so pending changes will once again be primary. Dreadstar ☥ 23:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. Looking back over the page history, I guess a case can be made for extending the semi-p for a longer period of time. (Of course, I have no idea when the new-and-improved PC will finally appear!) Anyway, not that big a deal, and I'll leave it up to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Princedj485

Hey, I noticed you blocked that user. I believe he is evading that block with several other accounts. I opened up a sockpuppet case, but I realized that Princedj485 had the same editing patterns (not to mention... FacebookDJ, Dolor285, the names are derivative). I'm not really used to the whole sock/adminny stuff, so I thought I'd ask you, seeing as you blocked the first user. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why have you removed my alert on vandalism?

Hello, May I why know have you removed my alert on vandalism before it was done? 204.174.87.29 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the edits you were concerned about are not vandalism. Dreadstar ☥ 01:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you call them then? 204.174.87.29 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me examples of the ones you're unsure about, and I'll explain them for you. From what I can see in your editing history, your own edits appear to be borderlining on Disruption; I'd recommend listening to the editors who have been posting on your talk page before you get yourself blocked. Also, based on edits like this one, I'd recommend that you read through WP:CIVIL. Let me add that it would be an extraordinarily odd thing (to say the least) for a highly trusted and established editor who is a sysop and checkuser to be vandalizing articles, as you so charge. Dreadstar ☥ 05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only indicate generalities and they don't apply here for example the civil. I am also an administrator for several years in another wiki. You have seen that someone wanted to revert the reverts. At least you should tell this person that its behaviour was not correct. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you for specifics. The reverts performed by the editor you reported were perfectly legitimate, and their behavior is fine; while your own edits violate the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline. Your comment to the other editor, "Can you think before you act?", is uncivil, period, as have been several other exchanges you've had with other editors. Please be more cautious with your comments. Dreadstar ☥ 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let take one of the last Night Watch (Lukyanenko novel). It's not broken but not correct since it needs a redirect. So the revert was not legitimate. Also it's obvious that he did all those reverts in a batch without thinking since he even cancelled interwikis. With the other editors I always tried to go to the bottom of the question, stopped when there were a debate or asked them to fix the source. I have asked that this page about notbroken be updated. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to read and understand WP:NOTBROKEN, your edit was not necessary in the first place and it violates that guideline. The editor merely put it back, which is clearly not vandalism. Your original edit is the problem, not the other way around. If you want to change WP:NOTBROKEN to fit your views, then I suggest you do so, but do not continue on your current path, it is to the point of being Tendentious Editing. Dreadstar ☥ 06:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not continue those updates (but you see someone else took the torch) but please I would really appreciate that you write at this notbroken that it's ok in that case or at least place this discussion where the community at large will give its opinion (in the French wiki it's easy since it's the bistro but here it is a maze). 204.174.87.29 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start the discussion on the talkpage of WP:NOTBROKEN, and find Consensus for such a change. I'm not certain I agree with your position, but others may. Thanks for agreeing to discontinue these actions and work with other editors on any future changes. Dreadstar ☥ 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AngelFlight block

I've asked a question in the ANI thread about this block. I was involved in the content discussion at the Lyndon LaRouche article, and, in my opinion, AngelFlight was complying with Wikipedia's policies. I did not see any blatent POV-pushing. A checkuser has not conclusively linked the account to a banned editor. They just happen to use the same ISP and/or edit from a similar IP range. As soon as you blocked the account, Will Beback reverted many, if not all, of the edits that that account had made. So, I think, based on Will's history with the LaRouche articles and personal attacks or aspersions he cast against the account before requesting the block, that there was a personal grudge aspect here. I was not aware of the ANI thread, which appears to have taken place while I was in sleep mode, so I didn't have a chance to present evidence that the block request might not have been completely straightforward. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, so far no evidence to justify the block as a sock of a banned editor has been presented in that ANI thread. My question as to whether the IP addresses were the same has gone unanswered. Pending presentation of some or any evidence, would you unblock the account? Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Cla, I have great respect for you and I usually agree with your comments; but in this case I must disagree. I didn’t block the user for blatant POV-pushing, the account was blocked because it was an obvious sock of a banned user, which was confirmed by checkuser. I can’t unblock, it just wouldn’t be the right thing to do, it’s a confirmed sock of a banned user. As far as your AN/I request for CU details, sometimes a little STO is the best policy.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 15:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the checkuser audit sub-committee to examine the checkuser to make sure everything was done correctly. I suppose that further actions, if any, could wait until they finish their inquiry. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tact and diplomatic skills

They are appreciated. Even belatedly. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. K., I appreciate the kind words. Let me know if there are further issues on those articles, always glad to help! Dreadstar ☥ 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very kind of you. Thanks again Dreadstar. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hullo. Excuse me. I am a new editor. It has come to my attention that you are performing vandalism by not allowing us to add the notable alum Alyssa Briody. What gives? PS You are a wicked fast counter-vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.163.119 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your question. In order to add people to the article's list of notable alumni, they will need to pass the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Notability or at least have reliable sources indicating why the individual is notable enough to be listed. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 05:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's very helpful. I have prepared the evidentiary support you requested. I believe you will find this more than satisfactory. If you have any other requirements we can be of assistance with, please do not hesitate to let us know, via our talk page on the anonymous IP you can see affiliated with our edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.163.119 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked Talk Page

Hi there. I noticed that you keep reverting my talk page, and have now semi-protected it. As I'm sure you're aware, I am now operating as a registered user. My intention is to blank this talk page to protect my IP address and identifiable information, and not to do any other IP editing. I feel like this should be acceptable since it is my talk page, and if admins/editors really need to know my history they can easily do that by searching the revision history. I know that we've had some issues working together in the past, and I would like it if we could work this out politely and using a dialogue. However, if you don't feel that's possible, I'm prepared to ask for assistance from another admin. What do you think? Please keep in mind, I'm a relatively new editor and am not totally familiar with all policies and guidelines, and I welcome your guidance. 75.73.50.195 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]