User talk:Dreadstar

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 †

Verifiability stuff

Hi Dreadstar, with regard to "creative misunderstandings" of VnT, I answered here on WT:V that Ealdgyth had, in the past, turned up some examples. Here's the link to her talk page archive where this subject came up. Cheers, Pesky (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, basically that's not VnT, that's dealt with by elements of policy such as WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, WP:N and others. If the incorrect, debunked content or sources are notable, significant viewpoints (e.g. Moon landing conspiracy theories), we can't keep that content out just because some editors believe it to be false - that's more to the point of VnT. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that, I think. What happens with the idea of writing something along the lines of "Many people used to think [blah blah] but it has recently been established that [blah blah]". Not that I have any problem such as this in anything I'm working on, just out of interest. Pesky (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to follow the sources, so we'd need sources that say something along those lines, that "many people used to think X, but due to advances in Belckefarbing, they now know it's Y". Kinda like Flat Earth is worded. Dreadstar ☥ 02:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting over here rather than at the drama board in question. I think the disagreement over there is the meaning of "threshold." I get your point that if it can't even pass WP:V, then it's out before it even gets assessed for the other criteria. I think that folks misunderstand that "truth" is something that is the NEXT step, after "verifiability." But I too have run into a lot of people who try the "it's verified, so you can't take it out" thing. Pesky knows my spats with User "JLAN" and that has often been at the heart of the problem. [Here's an example I dealt with]. Just some thoughts. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you got it about 'threshold', it's really the best word to describe how V is used as the only real starting point for potential content. The truth part describes something actually irrelevant in that process, but extremely powerful and complex. The simplicity of the potent message of VnT is actually pretty extraordinary; it's a shame so many want to tear it apart and misquote or attempt to misuse it. But there it is. And no, V does not mean content must included or cannot be removed just because it's verifiable, the other components of content policy must be satisifed after it meets V - including whatever measures of truth are imparted by reliable sources. Dreadstar ☥ 02:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do prefer "fundamental requirement" to threshold; there's something about "threshold" (like a doorway, the traditional "threshold") that gives the impression of "Cross this and you're in!". I don't know whether being an HFA editor makes me more sensitive to little nuances like this (it might well do); I suspect here in WikiLand we have way more than the population-normal percentage of people with similar brain-hardwiring differences, so I personally like policies which really can't be misunderstood or have unintended nuances. I think of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:DUE being more like a "nested-if" statement in programming/formula, where all the conditions have to be met for inclusion. Threshold feels to me more like a binary choice / toggle / whatever (can't think of the best word), a kind of "You're either in or out, depending on this alone", which then has to be qualified by the idea of multiple thresholds. I;m having real trouble wording this waffle – surfeit of painkillers, I think! (But at least I can sit at the computer today ...) Pesky (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually several "fundamental requirements" for content inclusion, but only one true threshold. Technically, in the context of VnT, "threshold" means "the place or point of entering or beginning', it is not already in. The comparison to a door threshold can be apt, many thresholds are actually outside the door, some doors straddle above the threshold, but none are inside. If you meet the threshold, you're not in; you need to cross it to do that. And to cross it you have to pass my guard dog and then me with my shotgun, among other barriers and filters. :) Taking the door threshold another step, pardon the pun, it's under the door. So the door to the house can be closed. Remember the groom carries the bride across the threshold, they don't just meet it. As far as it being a solo 'binary choice', "in or out" well, even "fundamental requirement" can appear to mean that. But you can't just take "threshold is Verifiability" and leave out all the other words, it's very clear that there are other content policies once you get to the threshold, (guard dog, shotgun, etc..). "Threshold" must be taken in context, as with any other wording you choose to replace it with. Believe me, no wording will be perfect...I had to laugh when I read the edit summary "another formulation that is unambiguous ", riiiight....lol! Dreadstar ☥ 08:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just FYI,on a refreshing note, the area seems recently to have been hit by an almost-unprecedented outbreak of sanity! Pesky (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, I'll be sure to look in on it in a year or two to see how things finally panned out. :) Dreadstar ☥ 08:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(>**)> Granny-Hugz! I was gobsmacked; it's worth a read, just to increase your optimism levels. (Nobody can see you if you're just reading ... :o) ) Pesky (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether others can see or not, it's the bad, lingering feelings I get from the whole fiasco. And I see that such 'sanity' has broken out that the page is once again protected. This time by an arbitrator/admin who had joined the dispute then applied protection - providing a lovely showcase of WP:INVOLVED. The whole thing lends more weight to Doc's statement, "Let 'em trash the policy even more; it's a disgrace to the processes we are supposed to go by". Yeah, nice and sane. :) Dreadstar ☥ 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the 'granny-hugz!', I needed some of those![reply]

Oh, well, at least it's not quite as insane as it has been. As for hugs, you can haz granny-hugs whenever you wish. Pesky (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fun V

Have fun with WP:V, Dreadstar! After seeing yet another new round of butchering, irreversible misunderstandings of consensus and BRD, and, to top it off, myself being baselessly accused of sock and/or meat puppetry, I'm leaving it to the rest of you fine folks. Free at last! Cheers :> Doc talk 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beat you to it, Doc, I took WP:V off my watchlist a couple of days ago, I’m tired of dealing with tendentious, mean-spirited edit warriors who make threats like this and then go off to hatch a plot to increase the tendentious editing and attempt to get the opposition sanctioned by ArbCom, ignoring the results of the recent community-wide RfC on VnT, as well as misusing WP:BRD in place of the actual way substantive changes are supposed to be made to Policy, per WP:CONLIMITED. Nice. They can play their reindeer games with someone else. Dreadstar ☥ 02:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add here, that WP:CONLIMITED says:

"Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others"

Bolding is mine, and this reflects earlier editor's concerns that the so-called "compromise" versions of WP:V weren't widely publicized to the community and did not have a "higher standard of participation and consensus" until it was so advertised. Then the 'losers' of that RFC started calling that "shenanigans" and attacking the editors who insisted on wide community advertisement and participation. So with the new paradigm I describe above, that's not likely to really happen in the near future. Without that nonsense on my watchlist, I feel free! Dreadstar ☥ 03:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing puts me in mind of some otherwise forgettable science fiction made for TV thing called "V" where aliens took over people and they looked just like us or something? It's starting to feel that way around here some days... Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I loved V - the whole saga ran from 1983-1985. I thought it was great... of course, I was shy of my twelfth birthday when it came out. The aliens didn't really "take people over" - they looked like us, but were actually wearing human-looking disguises to hide their true reptilian nature. They came to take Earth's water to save their dying home planet, and to take us humans for food, all the while lying to a gullible world who believed they were benevolent visitors. Fun stuff! I saw some of the first miniseries on cable recently, and it's pretty cheesy. Michael Ironside, BTW, is always a badass. Doc talk 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah V is classic 80's cheese-sci-fi! They reimagined it in V (2009 TV series). Not anywhere near the reimagining of Battlestar Galactica, but more up-to-date-cheese...or, mouse, as the reptile flies.. ;) Dreadstar ☥ 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "mouse", I remembered this conflicting pre-teen memory. Diana was so hot - yet so monstrous! Such a bitch! Love it! Doc talk 10:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living in a location where we can't get cable and I refuse to pay for the rip-off that is satellite, I have not been able to get into the new series, but I may be one of the only fans of the original Battlestar Galactica. Did you know that Dirk Benedict got his start in that series and was originally from White Sulphur Springs, Montana? Of course, nowadays, they've even redone the A-Team too, haven't they? My gawd, I'm feeling old! LOL!

I remember the Ceylons the most. A slightly later sci-fi series featured my possibly all-time favorite sci-fi TV babe Erin Gray - she was more interesting than Twiki, though I wasn't quite sure why at the time... Doc talk 10:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cylons were great, "by your command"..lol...they were upgraded to Cylon 'skin jobs' like this one, a nice competetion to Colonel Deering of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series), fer sure! Erin Gray was the bomb..! Dreadstar ☥ 18:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the funnies

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Thanks for adding some lightness and fun to Wikipedia with your WP:V exit comments. A real blessing after the never ending circular, heated, haven't-we-done-this-before, and so somewhat surreal environment of the WP:V talk page. olive (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Most kind of you to say so! Dreadstar ☥ 23:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Dreadstar: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TP post

Here? Are you familiar with WP:TALKNO? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, as I stated, the blocking admin has set the unblock conditions and there's no need to poison the well with a thread that did not result in any action or findings. The SPI with CU also found nothing, so to continue down that path is harassment and disruptive. Dreadstar ☥ 17:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German 'pedia

Is this you? I've been playing around there lately. My German is totally lousy, but who cares. I've been learning a bit about how the German 'pedia works. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Yes, that's me! If you need help with the German WP, check with User talk:Gerda Arendt, she's German, works on both the en and German versions - and she's awesomely wonderful and friendly! Good to her from you! Hope all is well! Dreadstar ☥ 19:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please see the details at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev concerning the IP you recently blocked. Mathsci (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie?

Hiya Dreadstar, just wanted to offer you some pixelated cookies. They look tasty, don't they? :) --Fang Aili ^talk 00:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They look absolutely delicious and sweet! Thanks so much, Fang, they're exactly what I needed! I prolly earned a whale, but this was very welcome..! Been having a hard time with family and I got a little snappish in my righteousness.... :) Dreadstar ☥ 06:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does wiki-stress and real life stress seem to hit at the same time? Whazzup wit' dat?? Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

while you are in a protecting mood

I see no objection in your protecting as a unilateral decision the various other Suicide articles in whatever state they happen to be when you choose to do so until a consensus is built about the categorisation edits. They will, of course, be in the wrong state :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I reported your witchhunt to ANI. I did some background research on you. It seems you've been in hot water before and are seeing elves where there are none.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]