User talk:DreamGuy

I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current. Those looking for archives are invited to refer to the history.

Note: If you are here to leave personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism, a long tirade about why your cat photo or article about yourself should be left alone as you and only you wanted, nonsensical rationalizations of why vampires, ancient astronauts, werewolves, "creation science" and so on should be treated as completely real and so forth, do not bother, as I'll either just remove them right away or simply point you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy which you should have read in the first place.

Otherwise please add new comments below (you can use the handy dandy +tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen).

chris benoit

you removed two external links (templates) that i added to mr. benoit's wikipedia entry. namely, a find a grave memorial and also his notable names database entry because you erroneously assume that they do not meet wikipedia standards - however if you had bothered to check you would have learned that wikipedia has its own templates for find a grave as well as the notable names database and you would have noticed that wikipedia encourages template links to both websites. in the future, please do not remove find a grave and notable names database templates. thanks. Lurgis 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage / talkpage confusion

Please make sure that you leave messages for people on their talk page and not their userpage as you did with User:Biaothanatoi, make sure you leave messages on the talk page. I have moved the discussion to the correct place. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, must have clicked the wrong link. Nice to see the person has been repeatedly warned in the past. It's long past time he/she got blocked. DreamGuy 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External wikis

Is there any record of the proposed policy that was rejected? Do you remember any of the details? The current external links guideline says that external wikis are links normally to be avoided "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Substantial in whose opinion? Stable in whose opinion? No mention of quality or neutral point of view, which is shocking. Don't we have enough trouble keeping the Wikipedia squared away? I'm all for quality free content, but not free content for free content's sake. Best, MoodyGroove 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I'll reply on your talk page. DreamGuy 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit...

I don't understand your edit on serial killers. You wrote "(→Missionary - 151.194.4.22 changed their to her when their was correct, plus removed or/opinion/silliness about ripper in this section, just uncited speculation against general knowledge of authors)".

The context is: "So-called missionary killers believe that their acts are justified on the basis that they are getting rid of a certain type of person (often prostitutes or members of a certain ethnicity), and thus doing society a favor. Gary Ridgway and Aileen Wuornos are often described as missionary killers. In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but their patrons." The bolded word is what was changed - previously it was "her". In this sentence, doesn't it refer specifically to Wournos' victims? Since she was female, wouldn't "her patrons" be correct?

• In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but their patrons."
• In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but her patrons."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get why "their" is correct English in this sentence. (BTW, I wasn't the one who authored this section or modified it...I just noticed your comment in the history).

Also, I'm not sure that I'd have removed the reference to Jack the Ripper ("Arguably, Jack the Ripper may also fit this role"). It is somewhat speculative, but it's common speculation. I realize Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, but since Jack the Ripper is one of the most famous serial killers, I would expect to find him categorized in one of these areas. It's tricky, I agree. Better would be something that cited specific speculation by the chief ripperologists (which unfortunately I do not have handy). Not worth arguing about, I suppose - just wanted to say that it could be seen either way and is not perfect either way :-) Afabbro 03:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The victims were not prostitutes, but patrons of prostitutes. That's what the sentence is getting at. That would be their. The point was not that she would kill *her* patrons but that she would kill men who frequented prostitutes. The sentence could be worded more smoothly, granted, but the original version makes more sense than your version.

And good look finding any "chief" Ripperologist to cite who speculates that the Ripper was a Missionary killer. It's not at all a common belief in the field. It was proposed by some people at the time and slightly later who didn't really understand what motivated killers, and the idea was then featured in several fictional adaptations of the Ripper, but that's it. It's inclusion in the article was not only wildly speculative and unsourced but not at all in line with what the experts think. DreamGuy 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About external linkboxes

Please see the chaos and related TfD mess here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_26#Template:FreeContentMeta Phil Sandifer was totally pushing this, but since he's an admin with a lot of friends, you'll have a hard time convincing him that those boxes are bad. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether anyone can convince him he's wrong doesn't matter, he is just plain wrong, and a number of people have told him so. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just pushy people with similarly pushy friends who want to make this their personal playgrounds instead of an encyclopedia to be proud of. DreamGuy 21:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet query

Haha, well you got me, I was the one who originated it and we both do edit han dynasty pages, but we certainly aren't the same fellow. I mean i have no problem with a ban, just thought I'd let you know that as fishy as it seems we really aren't the same person. Thats real unbelievable, so take it as you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverisclever (talk • contribs) (originally signed as Hardworker111 despite being signed in as Whateverisclever)

Man i'm confusing you so bad and its done being funny now. I'm the sockpuppet, i tried to trick you with the opposite signature, lol.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverisclever (talk • contribs)

• Kukini i was trying to mess with his head before i got banned and you ruined it! well anyway the jokes over, do what you must.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverisclever (talk • contribs)

Yup I see that here! Wildthing61476 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice both users's penchant for marking their edits as "minor". I haven't really investigated the matter beyond that. I'll leave it up to you to decide if this person uses 2 accounts maliciously. Do know that it's not against the rules to use 2 accounts constructively.--Atlan (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

photoshopping

Hi Guy. Question: Why do you want to get rid of the (unsorced? *) neologism? What is your wp philosophy behind this edit? I am new to Wikipedia and I am really interested in your rational. I think that, while it is unsourced and a neologism, and it could really use some clean-up, it's still an important component to knowledge about Photoshop. I think that we should change the section to say something like "There are many internet cultures/activities focused on humorous/creative editing of images commonly referred to as "photoshopping", but Adobe hates this term because, like Klenex or Band-Aid, if it becomes common usage the company will loose it's trademark" or something like that.

What if we got rid of the community and turned it into a section about Trademark, but linked it to other wiki pages that discuss other instances of the same thing happening, like Google (verb).

* Also, the article in which adobe says "don't say photoshopping" in fact sources the essential parts of the section, and the wiki page Photoshop contest has sourced information about community of photoshop editing. What if we just link a mention of community to that page, instead of completely removing it all?

--Ceas webmaster 20:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to having a link in a see also. Otherwise it's completely pointless to the main article. Just some internet kiddies putting around thinking that they are more important than actual information about the world's leading professional software etc. etc. DreamGuy 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Venus Construct and Other Popular Culture References

Hi DreamGuy,

Apparently we have different views on what should be under the Birth of Venus' Popular Culture References section. You keep on deleting Venus Construct and other references and I keep on putting them back and so on. In order to stop this annoying cycle, can we talk civilly on a talk page or something so we can avoid an edit war, because edit wars just waste time.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Psdubow 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the article you kept linking to as nonnotable spam to be deleted, other people can discuss it as a group. DreamGuy 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And it got deleted from Wikipedia entirely, proving me correct to be removing it from other pages. DreamGuy 00:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop

Thank you for correcting my edits to the Adobe Photoshop article. If you have problems with what I am doing please notify me now before I cause too much damage. ALTON .ıl 06:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Also, is it necessary to have the retail box pictures in there? It would be much more useful to have GUI screenshots, and those boxes crowd up the page. ALTON .ıl 07:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have problems with your edits overall, just that one line I changed, for the reasons stated. Overall I like your edits. You're probably right on the usefulness of different images there. DreamGuy 19:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

English version

Just a quick note to say that the spelling changes to spring healed Jack weren't a mistake, these are genuine American English spellings. It's largely a matter of personal knowledge and preference which are used. If you don't like them I won't interfere. perfectblue 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry... The article is clearly about a topic in England, therefore British spelling is always used regardless of the personal preferences of the editors involved. That's a policy here. I am American as well, but I follow the style guide here that everyone is expected to follow. Please return them to British spellings. DreamGuy 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

James D. Macdonald

"...this article is a travesty."

Funny you should use that description...--SarekOfVulcan 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cute story. But it has its own article already. That's no reason to remove the notability tag for this article. DreamGuy 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean, being an author with enough clout to organize a couple of dozen other authors to perform a hoax doesn't indicate that you're notable? Ok, how about publishing one or two books?--SarekOfVulcan 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think people were so willing to take on Publish America that clout isn't even an issue, as someone with no background whatsoever could just have easily been the organizing force. And, again, the notability of that project, which has it's own article already, does not confer notability for separate articles for anyone involved.

Publishing one or two books.... maybe. Depends upon sales, influence, etc. If you think you can make a case for it, put it into the article. DreamGuy 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Great edit!

Wow, this is a great edit. It's great to have you contributing at Mermaid; I haven't noticed that POV-sentence before. --Neigel von Teighen 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I normally just look for changes, so it can be easy to miss things, but when that new pointless sentence got added I saw that nearby content had problems too. DreamGuy 17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Quine's paradox

Thanks for your helpful message. I wanted to reply via message as well but I seem unable to do so...thus I have replied here. I now agree that your version of the first section is better. I had wanted to do an edit which makes clear what it means to say Quine's sentence is "paradoxical," viz., that it can be proven both true and false. I also wanted to sketch the proof, and make clear that, although the Quine-sentence itself is not self-referring, it has a predicate which is self-referring. But all this is probably too much for Wikipedian purposes.

Similarly, I may have gone into too much detail in the second section. However, I have revised your version of that section in two ways. First, if you look in Quine (1961), his initial opponent is not someone who wants to eliminate self-reference from the object-language. (Although he also discusses this Tarskian strategy later in the paper, that is not his first concern.) Rather, the opponent is someone who believes there is a very straightforward solution to the Liar.

In particular, the opponent thinks we can replace the demonstrative-phrase 'this sentence' with a name for the sentence demonstrated--and get a sentence which is equivalent to the Liar. (After all, such a name and the demonstrative phrase would be co-referring, and plus, the language is assumed to be extensional.) With 'This sentence is false,' the result of such a replacement is ' 'This sentence is false' is false.' But the opponent says this latter sentence is NOT paradoxical--that's because the second sentence is not talking about the second sentence. Rather, the second sentence is talking about the Liar. But if the second sentence is not paradoxical, then neither is the Liar--for these sentences are supposed to be equivalent.

Actually, I think the second sentence is just as paradoxical as the Liar. But Quine's reply is to say that, even if the opponent's view is correct, we still have not purged the object-language of all paradox. And thus, he gives us the Quine-paradox.

My final edit (besides the bibliography) was to delete the clause saying that Quine's sentence demonstrates "the problem is intrinsic to the notion of sentences that discuss truth and falsity." But it was Tarski, a predecessor of Quine, who demonstrated that truth/falsity gives rise to the paradoxes. Nonetheless, neither Quine's argument nor Tarski's shows that *any* language which contains 'true' and 'false' will be paradoxical. Indeed, a Tarskian metalanguage is precisely a non-paradoxical language that contains 'true' and 'false.'

Thanks again for your concern, Ted.

Hi Ted,

Well, just wanted to try to get the edits more in line with policies on citing sources and being written like an article instead of an opinion piece. Now that you've seen the policies I'll trust you to go revise the edits and then have the editors there look it over as time permits.

(By the way, you can sign your comments by entering four of the ~ symbols at the end of your message, which in my case turns out like this:

DreamGuy 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Although I feel my warning tags were justified, you've made it clear that you're aware of the relevant polices, so that the tags serve no purpose. I apologize for any violations of WP:CIVIL I may have committed on this page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris McCusker on hypersudoku

I would like to know why you consider any additions I make to wikipedia as spam. I made a reference to hypersudoku.com as an example of online hypersudoku. At that stage it was definitely the only site on the planet that had hyper sudoku playable online. As far as I know it still is. There are many sites that provide downloadable PDF images at a price. We don't do this. There are millions of people in this world that love the game and obviously you are not one. This site is free to access and play as many games as you like. As there is no money made from this site please tell me how this is considered spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmccus01 (talk • contribs)

Please take a look at WP:EL (Wikipedia's rules on external links), as well as WP:COI (rules on conflict of interest) and WP:SPAM (self-evident). You'll see there that edits solely to promote your own site are expressly prohibited. Furthermore, links to sites for the only purpose of getting Wikipedia readers to play games have no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, so that even if you were not affiliated with that site in any way and somebody else had put the link there it would STILL be removed as not fulfilling any legitimate educational purpose. And hypersudoku is such a minor variant of the game anyway that it's lucky it gets any mention at all. DreamGuy 04:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Few points

1. These are not "my edits"; I'm simply attempting to undo the damage wrought by another anon IP. You have this confused. I simply found his butchery in passing and gave it a revert--I have no consuming passion about the topic (unlike the other anon, apparently). You took a side, not that of a stalwart defender of "consensus" but of one anon against another.
2. I am not going against "consensus"; this hackneyed attack isn't even appropriate, given that the difference between it and the last version you edited (which I guess is according to you, "consensus") and the difference made by the other anon is vast, as you can see in this version, which reveals the primary difference between your last edit and my reversion to be spelling changes and a whole two elaborating sentences. Note that among the changes you will not see in the "consensus" (i.e. your) version is the ludicrous subheader, "Alleged crimes".
3. Immediate 3RR threats. I'm perfectly aware of policy, but you wish to use it as a blunt instrument of first resort. Try actually looking at the diffs in question and the horrible editing done by the anon instead of playing power games, please.

--72.65.88.166 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "damage" by an anon IP was actually badly-needed edits to restore some semblence of WP:NPOV. If you'd bother to read the talk page of that article you would see that there is no evidence of any supposed diary by Bathory, and so forth and so on. Your edits go completely against any number of Wikipedia policies, and are shoddy attempts to through rumor mongering into the article without reliable sources. Simply put, your edits (and the people who put equally bad edits in in the past) will not survive, so you should give up right now, as there is absolutely no justification for them, and consensus is clearly against them. DreamGuy 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the following IPs were used to insert those two sentences of caveats:

91.104.238.113

65.48.21.69

I have no connection to these IPs. --72.65.88.166 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are not "caveats" those are outright and inexcusable POV-pushing. I doubt that you have no connection to those IPs, but since they so blatantly violate the most fundamental policy on Wikipedia it doesn't particularly matter, They are just shy of vandalism. DreamGuy 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you haven't responded to any of my points; you've just repeated the same name-calling and bad faith characterizations. I didn't insert those into the article originally, so I'm not "pushing" anything. I was responding to the anon who went through and watered down the crime section and left hanging code on the article page. You originally said I was going against a "consensus" version; now that it is clear that the person in question was actually changing that version, you instead have said he was acting in the ethereal spirit of "consensus" instead.

No, sorry. My opinion is as valid as yours. The idea that these crimes are merely "alleged" is patent nonsense, and the anon's edit needs cleaned and worked over. --72.65.88.166 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your points, you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong, and, no, your opinion is not as valid as mine, because what you say is a direct contradiction of the most important policy on the site. DreamGuy

I also find it interesting that you are giving me lessons about 3RR. --72.65.88.166 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of those blocks were by admins who didn't know that the policy was for more than three reverts. They would have blocked you for your edits also. Personally I don't care if you violate 3RR, I care that you are pushing extremely biased opinions into an article. DreamGuy 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a legitimate editing dispute. The fact that you characterize my reverts (not even my original edits) as violating policy is not surprising and is wholly irrelevant--it is in your interest to do so. You did not engage on the substance here. --72.65.92.220 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you ignore the substance and just assert you are right when anyone who had bothered to look at the talk page or our policies would know that you aren't. DreamGuy 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsycholog > Psych templates

Parapsychology falls under transpersonal psychology and does have some research published in mainstream psychology periodicals like Psychology Bulletin. There are labs in psychology departments of some Universities. I'm not editing that article, but I thought you should know because removal of the templates, eventhough the psychology link is sourced in the article, could be seen as a point of view edit. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, putting the template there in the first place is pushing a POV that parapsychology is an accepted scientific discipline, when the overwhelming consensus of opinion within the field of psychology is that it's not. DreamGuy 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are two separate issues. Mainstream science as a whole does not accept parapsychology. Psychology is a little more accepting on these things. Psychology does accept things that mainstream science does not, like psychoanalytics and a host of other soft science things. Parapsychology is sourced as being under transpersonal psychology and falling under psychology. Adding the templates does not promote a pov of being accepted by science.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Psychologists are accepting of counselling strategies, but that's not the same thing as encouraging parapsychology. And the templates absolutely give entirely the wrong impression. You go to the psychology department of virtually every university in the world and there are no parapsychologists. The templates don't have anything remotely similar to parapsychology on them. It's completely inappropriate and misleading to readers. DreamGuy 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree on that. There's some universities in the US that have parapsychology departments under their psychology departments, some that have no departments but still offer classes, and a greater number in the UK that have both. I'm not going to press the issue with you though and am willing to agree to disagree. Though it's verifiable all the things said above, I have no idea if they "encourage" parapsychology, so I'll drop it because I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths, so to speak. Sure did make the page look prettier, though. : ) The removal of the category might be a bit much. It's at the very least associated with psychology. That was the rationale behind the pseudoscience category. It may or may not be, but it is associated with pseudoscience. It may or may not be psychology, but it is associated with psychology.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No it IS pseudoscience, which is why it's listed there. "Associated with" by whom? Parapsychologists trying to make themselves sound more respected than they are. So that's why psychology should be removed. Paraspsychology is also associated with scammers and bad fiction, but we don't have a hoaxes or fiction category on the page. DreamGuy 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The big IS is not necessarily a neutral point of view. There's a whole ArbCom about it going on, please participate if you feel strongly about it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a neutral point of view. There certainly could be non-pseudoscience ways to try to study such things, they just don't typically happen, and the overall topic as seen on the article is clearly way into pseudoscience. Of course parapsychologists would disagree, but Creation Scientists like to pretend they are biologists and etc. also. I appreciate the link to the ArbCom, but from the comments of the accepting Arbitrators it appears that they will be ruling on conduct issues of the Parapsychology Wikiproject members and not the topic in general, which I believe is already quite well spelled out in out WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just the thing. Other scientists sometimes disagree. It's not just the parapsychologists who sometimes don't think it is pseudoscience. Assuming that it is pseudoscience, when there's varying points of view on that is not necessarily a neutral point of view. It is choosing one point of view as the big IS point of view, as a matter of fact and not opinion. I understand that you feel it is, but there's sources that don't. It at least deserves the associative cat link. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up

Hoaxes might count as disruption, but per WP:HOAX they're not speedy candidates. The logic runs that, while every single other user might think it's a hoax, someone just might happen along with a key source which proves the opposite. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They must have modified it sometime then. DreamGuy

Censorship

I operate a website is fully relevant to the article - I have previously revised all edits to show their relevancy only to have them removed. There are others on each page you have removed my edit on which are less relevant and add little ... yet you seem to single out each and every edit I make, in an apparently biased manner.

For example on a page which lists supposedly haunted locations I added a single link to a world map showing the locations where people have reported experiences. This I think is a completely relevant link to what is contained in the article and you choose to remove it - whilst leaving irrelevant links from other people on other pages which clearly display the violations you profess have been breached.

I could spend hours adding to articles and referencing the content to the relevant sections of my site only to have you choose that they are not appropriate. How would you suggest I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostHunterOz (talk • contribs)

I suggest you proceed by reading and following the rules outlined on WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:EL, as already pointed out on your talk page. Linking to your own site is a big no-no here. I saw you make an improper edit on one article, so assumed your other edits might do the same, and when I checked they had, so I removed them. It's as simple as that. DreamGuy 00:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology in psychology topic list?

I recently took a course in psychology and we definitely spent a few lectures on parapsychology, maybe it should be listed as "psi phenonema". It is definitely a topic in my psychology text book (Westen 2006). I've left wikipedia (for now) but I just checked my text and psi was not there. It is only in my lecture slides. So you were probably correct to remove it from the list of topics. I will need to have a look at the inclusion critiera for that list at some stage. There are many other topics that have similar features to parapsychology. --Comaze 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like you much. Never have. IMHO you are positional, overbearing, and have some very serious issues regarding power and control.

That said, I would appreciate you keeping your personal attacks to yourself, especially when they involve lying publicly. That sort of behavior weakens an already compromised credibility. --DashaKat 11:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you aimed that at, but if it's me, I don't even know you (if I've interacted with you in the pat you were pretty forgettable), other than what I see on the arbitration you are currently under for massive POV-pushing on parapsychology articles. And mentioning that fact is not a personal attack, nor a lie. The opinion of someone identified as a major problem editor and currently in the process of getting disciplined for it about my credibility is not a concern at all. DreamGuy 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had you confused with the similarly-named and similarly acting User:Davkal. So that's not you... but then that doesn't mean your arguments are any more valid. And only goes to prove I don't even know who you think you are to say you never liked me or what you think, as I don't care. DreamGuy 21:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We haven't interacted, as I don't do snarking. I've watched your editing, and it is as I say. Whether you care or not is not the issue. The impression you leave as a high-handed, know-it-all pseudo-intellectual is what really counts. --DashaKat 21:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

chris benoit

you removed two external links (templates) that i added to mr. benoit's wikipedia entry. namely, a find a grave memorial and also his notable names database entry because you erroneously assume that they do not meet wikipedia standards - however if you had bothered to check you would have learned that wikipedia has its own templates for find a grave as well as the notable names database and you would have noticed that wikipedia encourages template links to both websites. in the future, please do not remove find a grave and notable names database templates. thanks. Lurgis 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but those two links have been added by organized spammers. I will remove them whenever I see them, per discussion on the policy pages regarding spam and external links. DreamGuy 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ever the authoritarian. What are you, 12? --DashaKat 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)