User talk:Dreadstar/UTDEHA2: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Dreadstar Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:46, 12 February 2009 editFimusTauri (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,045 edits →NPOV FAQ: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:20, 12 February 2009 edit undoDreadstar (talk \| contribs)53,180 edits →NPOV FAQ: thanksNext edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:

	You recently changed this page to reflect the fact that it is a guideline, not a policy. I ahve no problem with this, but it has, as it were, "brought you to my attention". On the talk page of that article I recently launched an RfC regarding the small section on the FAQ about the use of ambiguous words in religious articles. Unsurprisingly, the debate has devolved into one purely about the word "myth". If you have any interest in this subject I would appreciate input from an admin as I am already at wits-end and ready to go to some other stage of arbitration.--] (]) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)		You recently changed this page to reflect the fact that it is a guideline, not a policy. I ahve no problem with this, but it has, as it were, "brought you to my attention". On the talk page of that article I recently launched an RfC regarding the small section on the FAQ about the use of ambiguous words in religious articles. Unsurprisingly, the debate has devolved into one purely about the word "myth". If you have any interest in this subject I would appreciate input from an admin as I am already at wits-end and ready to go to some other stage of arbitration.--] (]) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
			:Thanks for the note, I'll take a look at that discussion. The primary issue with this FAQ is that it's just not a policy and was never meant to be. These "discussions" of what "is is" means are always...well..problematic, to be perfectly ] about it. ] <small>]</small> 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:20, 12 February 2009

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

Welcome!

Archives and sandboxes

In recognition of your efforts on Misplaced Pages 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

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

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

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

New comments below this section

Thanks! Dreadstar †

Block a vandal?

Hi, Dreadstar. A vandal who was given a final warning a few days ago has continued to vandalize Misplaced Pages, most recently. It may be time to block. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Dreadstar † 00:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings unto you, O still mighty defender of the Wiki

Hey. Guess who's back doing a little editing here & there? --Yksin (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV FAQ

You recently changed this page to reflect the fact that it is a guideline, not a policy. I ahve no problem with this, but it has, as it were, "brought you to my attention". On the talk page of that article I recently launched an RfC regarding the small section on the FAQ about the use of ambiguous words in religious articles. Unsurprisingly, the debate has devolved into one purely about the word "myth". If you have any interest in this subject I would appreciate input from an admin as I am already at wits-end and ready to go to some other stage of arbitration.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look at that discussion. The primary issue with this FAQ is that it's just not a policy and was never meant to be. These "discussions" of what "is is" means are always...well..problematic, to be perfectly PC about it. Dreadstar † 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)