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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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).

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)

Hi DreamGuy,

Why did you remove the Bazura Project parody from the Ferris Bueller references in popular culture bit? It's a legitimate show, the link was real, and there's no reason that I can see for its removal. -- JerryFM

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)

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)

Extinctioners character pages

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you but I saw your changes after my most recent edits to the Extinctioners page (don't worry, I'm not complaining about that) I just wanted to ask you a question, the links to the characters are now either the ones to the pages created by User:SilverWerewolf or are linked to subjects not related to the characters, my question is should the links the changed back to the ones from wikifur? I'm not trying to underhand any progress being done, I wanted to ask you first, get your opinion before I did anything that would be frowned upon by the admins since I don't like to anger people, thank you and I look forward to your responce - RVDDP2501 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikifur is not something we link to in the body of an article. Per discussion on the talk page of WP:EL we also know that it has been relentlessly spammed to Wikipedia and should not generally be linked to even in External links sections, but certainly not in See alsos or in the body of an article. If there is no Wikipedia article on the character then we don't link to anything. Other Wiki sites, especially special interest ones, are not some subset of Wikipedia. DreamGuy 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see well having that said, what would you recommend be done with the links? Should I make minor changes, add missing pictures (with licenses) or fix links? Please, I would like to get your opinion and if you think these changes would be welcomed, I would like to get your permission before proceeding, I don't like making mistakes since they can lead to unnecessary conflicts, once again, thank you for your reply - RVDDP2501 22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's a Wikipedia article on a specific character, link to it. If the link goes to some other character, remove it. I would recommend against inserting pictures for each character as the whole topic in general is up for deletion as possibly not being notable enough to stay, so there's no reason to have images of each individual character. I have no idea how well known this topic is in the world in general, but very few articles have any reason to go through and add images for each character. I know many pages here do do that, but then that's more what fans want to do versus what an encyclopedia should do. DreamGuy 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, I see where you are coming from, thanks. I will do as you suggested (remove incorrect links, etc.) I hope I can be helpful on this and on other matters in the future and I really appricate your input on this subject. Oh, by the way, if the main Extinctioners article does survive the nomination for deletion (everyone decides to keep it), what should then be done to it and the character links? Ok then, thanks again for your help - RVDDP2501 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that there's some sort of consensus of what to do with the article that is formed as a result the discussion on the vote for deletion page. DreamGuy 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Extinctioners question

Hi, sorry again, I made the edits your suggested and here is my next question, Shawntae Howard (Comic's creator) informed me recently that a Graphic Novel to the same comic is currently being made with a planned release in 2008, should I include this information in the publication history section or do you need further information before I make such an edit like I send you the same email he sent me, if so, could you please give me the address to forward it to? - RVDDP2501 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To include that you'd need some sort of reliable and verifiable published source. Some comic news website or publication that mentions that, an official post on the creator's website, or something along those lines. DreamGuy 23:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ok well Shawntae is trying to get a quote or a link about this subject, here is what he told me in one of the e-mails:

"Well, I'm asking Mike Curtis, to send me a quoatable copy of the text from the article that wrote about Extinctioners.

The graphic Novel and then the continuing series will be published through the new comic company http://www.angryvikingpress.com/ And I guess Here are some samples of it."

So I guess the only thing I can do right now is wait until he get the word, ok thanks again, I'll keep my ears out for the info and contact you once I do to find out if it is sufficient - RVDDP2501 23:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox removal

Why did you remove the infobox from Mensa International? Andrew_pmk | Talk 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because to be an infobox it has to be informative, and this one does nothing but add a huge ugly frame around it and a piece of text already in lead. Infoboxes just for the sake of infoboxes are awful, and the guy putting it back was blind reverting to an old version of the page and wiping out any changes made in the meantime. Until there's actual reason to have an infobox or there's a consensus of people who want it, there's no justification for it whatsoever.DreamGuy 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is a dispute over whether the infobox belongs on this page or not. I have created a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Groovy. DreamGuy 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Mary (folklore)

The book by Bill Ellis does connect the Bloody Mary legend and the divination ritual, placing both of them in the context of supernatural dares and legend tripping in adolescent folklore. He points out that the greeting cards are rather cryptic, and assume general knowledge of the divination ritual which is needed to make sense of the scenes they present. And, though of course the greeting cards do not present this, one potential outcome was to see a skull in the mirror rather than your future husband's face; this meant that you were doomed to die before marrying, and introduced the theme that the mirror ritual was a scary matter, and summoned dangerous spirits. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Ellis book. He does not cite the website by name; much of the section is based on an article about the Bloody Mary legend in the Indiana Journal of Folklore, so it may be that the same source underlies both of them. He does mention that the Bloody Mary ritual is essentially the old divination ritual, re-purposed; the elements of darkness, candlelight, and gazing into the mirror are preserved. What changed was the cultural context: divining your future husband was no longer a major preoccupation of adolescent girls; slasher films and similar horror stories were much more prominent by then. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fishy

Yes, I saw it and annotated it. I don't know which is correct, so both should stay. Who says IMDB is not a reliable source? IT seems that the makers of a movie would have done some research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is user-edited, and about movie characters, not historical people and events. People who make movies may do some research, but they are there first and foremost for fiction. I'm shocked anyone could even argue that that's a reliable source. DreamGuy 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dear_Boss_letter ?!?!

You are one of only few people out there thinking that.How else could he knew that ears are going to be cut off??

Dzoni1 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Most authors, as well as police at the time, thought the letter was not written by the killer. And not that this has anything to do with Wikipedia. DreamGuy 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UT

actions

I made it clear on the edit summary I was not acting as a admin. I made it clear on a user talk part that i did not think parapsychology a part of psychology, but that I think the category was none the less reasonable, and I cannot think of a more neutral attitude. I said I would apply 3RR if I saw 3RR, and so I will--and I would be irresponsible if i did not, but I do not go around looking for it ; I advised otherwise to ask on AN/3RR, and where is a better place? I think I also said that I did not think you would violate 3RR, and I do not think you will. But I do not want to offend you, and I prefer peace. So I will withdraw from this. I have unwatched the page. But in all fairness I advise you that I do not think you will find anyone sympathetic to the repeated deletions of the category. DGG 05:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has read WP:NPOV would not only be sympathetic but would demand the category not be there. DreamGuy 08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gorgons in popular culture

I've nominated Gorgons in popular culture, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Gorgons in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgons in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Gorgons in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jay32183 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted you to know that I tagged Gorgons in popular culture for speedy deletion because it is now an orphan and all. As you may have noticed, I created Medusa and gorgons in popular culture‎ from the Medusa and Gorgon lists, and have found great sources for much of it. Both the Gorgon and Medusa articles link to this new page, which I think will survive because of the references I've added so far. It still needs more work, though. TAnthony 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous users

If you are concerned about an anonymous editor falsely claiming to be multiple people you can use a WHOIS lookup on their contribution page to see if they come from the same location. However, it seems from your comments that you have a dislike for IP users. Remember that they have the same right to edit as those with accounts. Contrarrevolucionario 06:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I have a dislike for specific IP users. And actually, as a matter of reality as compared to philosophy, no, IP users do not have the same rights as other users, as a number of articles get locked to editing by IP accounts and the actual activities of many admins consider IP accounts to be less valid than real accounts. I personally think IP accounts should have just as many rights, and would edit myself from an IP address if admins weren't so hostile to the idea, but how things should be and how they actually are are different. DreamGuy 21:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why discriminate based on who a person chooses to use as an ISP?

When editing the typeface article 12 May 2007 you said ``(some cleanup... figured any site that had more than one page listed under external links was spam, also foreign language sites, AOL member pages and wikiwannabes)

Did you take any time to look at the .pdfs?

http://members.aol.com/willadams/portfolio/typography/typefaceterminology.pdf and http://members.aol.com/willadams/portfolio/typography/onetype.pdf

While I understand your concern about spam, I believe that in this instance the links are valid and useful. None of the links which remain afford reasonable, easily printable discussions of typeface terminology, or a brief discussion of how a typeface can be made up of many fonts.

Photo editing article

Hi – I notice you edited the "photoshopping" section of this article recently. I realise this had little to do with the dispute over the second para, but I was hoping the whole section could be reviewed before we make any more major edits.

As you probably noticed, I've started a Request for Comments section on the talk page there in which I've described the first para as "not subject to repeated reversion". This doesn't mean to imply that it's in anyway "finished" or even uncontroversial. FWIW I agree entirely with the edits you made to it yesterday. The RfC summary already mentions over-use of neologisms and I hope both this and all other extraneous info can be removed pending the discussion there. But we need the discussion first; I understand that you've stated your case many times before but without restating it here I can't see any lasting way of resolving things in your favour.

If you feel the case as stated is in any way inaccurate, please let me know; either leave me a message here, on my talk page or comment directly under the last post at the RfC section. I'll update the summary and hopefully we can find some compromise from it without recourse to the RfC page itself. Meanwhile I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from editing the section. Thanks. mikaul^talk 11:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you agree with my edits, revert to my edits, and say straight out on the talk page that yo agree with my edits. Then the guy forcing his bad version onto the article would have to give up. Not editing (and you not editing either) just allows the guy pushing the bad version to try to claim he has consensus, when he doesn't. DreamGuy 05:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points but I'll never agree with your repeated edits while a consensus is forming. Nor will I revert or edit anything while the article is tagged with {{ActiveDiscuss}} and neither should you or User:Dicklyon. The idea is progress though consensus, not "force"; your reverts are no less a use of force than his and I'll have no part of it. Leave him with his revert; it's a temporary state of affairs. Take yourself out of the WP:GAME with dignity. Consensus will come from the talk page, not the edit page, and I'm sure the guy will respect that.

I believe you're on the right tracks and assuming you continue in the spirit of compromise that you've shown recently, I'll back you up all the way. I've already responded to some of your comments in the RfC section.

Best wishes, mikaul^talk 12:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology from clpo13

Look, I'm really sorry about how I handled things the other day regarding photo editing. I took a step back (and a deep breath) and realized I was way out of line the whole time. I didn't mean to sound accusing at all, but apparently I need to brush up on my tact a bit. Just thought I should let you know that I completely take back everything nasty (or semi-nasty) I said that may have offended you or sounded accusing. I know this apology might be a bit unnecessary, but I figured it would be better than nothing at all. --clpo13 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

I see your point about the long blockquote that I added, I or someone should take the time to pull out the useful parts of that quote and insert them in a more coherent manner into the article. However you deleted all of my contribution, which I see to be unwarranted. I am going to re-edit the page and make my argument for my edits on the talk page of the article. Mwv2 05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ballsy for you to complain about someone removing your whole contribution when it consisted of removing all of the information from one POV so that the view isn't there anymore and added a huge chunk of copyright infringement in an attempt to push your own biases onto the article. Anyone who does that should expect to be reverted. DreamGuy 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of template

Just wondering why you removed the template. You have not bothered to discuss this on the talk page. If this template is going to be removed in situations like this, I think we might as well delete it. But I'd like to hear your justification - I've made my view clear on the talk page that this article is ridiculously human centered for something that is in no way a human phenomenon. Richard001 06:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template SHOULD be deleted, and in fact it already had been deleted in the past before you recreated it. I've tagged it for deletion under the "recreation of previously deleted page" rule. And I've discussed it on the WP:NPOV talk page... mainly wondering how anyone could seriously think that was appropriate ever.DreamGuy 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me point a couple of things out to you, DreamGuy. First, Template:Anthropocentric was created at my request by someone else after discussion at WP:TR. The deletion in the past was mentioned, I pointed out that the template used to say something like 'This article does not present a biocentric view', and that that was why it was deleted. Secondly, the template has not been used as a joke by me, and I've explained clearly why I've used it whenever I have. With that in mind, I don't see it as being a valid reason to ask for speedy deletion, as both reasons you've provided are misinformation (though I realize you didn't know that they were misinformation at the time). Please reply on my talk page. Richard001 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether the joke was intentional or unintentional doesn't matter. It is a joke, and completely useless, and a recreation of a deleted template that was deleted for the same reasons why this one should be deleted.

It's clear that there is no way you will convince me (and most likely anyone else) that your view on this is reasonable or important, so please do not waste your time posting here. Keep it on the NPOV talk page or where ever. This page is for discussion that might be useful for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing your personal disapproval with humankind in general and me for pointing out that encyclopedias are written for the purposes of human beings and not aliens or robots or chipmunks or whatever.

And please do not make multiple headings to discuss the same topic. But since you should not be posting to my talk page again just keep that in mind for your posts on other talk pages. DreamGuy 06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete this link?

I apologize ahead of time if this is not the appropriate place for this question. I am the webmaster for PainAndPaintings (a website that offers serial killer bios, trivia, interviews, artwork, etc). This website does not sell anything or have ads on it. Therefore, I was wondering why [SPAM LINK REMOVED] was removed from this article. Any clarification on why this happened and how I can go about resolving the problem would be a great help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalendar (talk • contribs)

See WP:SPAM, WP:ENC, WP:COI, WP:EL and other rules.DreamGuy 06:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can say that the information on this site does not have "encyclopedic purpose". This site has detailed and verified information from well over 300 Serial Killers, background on almost every fictional serial killer in every medium, detailed information on every classified type of murder/homicide and a lengthy list of common serial killer paraphilia. The fact that it also includes artwork of these killers should not detract from the massive amounts of information available on it). I have been looking through some of the pages where you removed links and notice that you left many links that point to sites with almost no useful information at all. I get the feeling that you are simply removing these links because you do not personally like the website. Please let me know if this is the case because I am seriously tempted to bring this up with Wikipedia staff and have you blocked for senselessly deleting links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalendar (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but you're wrong on all counts. And you should know that, as you were spamming this same site in the past and it always got removed then too. But please do bring it up with Wikipedia staff, as they certainly won't block me for doing what policies say everyone should do, and they probably will add your site to the blocklist of spam sites to never be included on any Wiki page anywhere. DreamGuy 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are talking about a different site (possibly serialkillercalendar). PainandPaintings is a relatively new website. I specifically created it as a purely informational site void of any ads or merchandise. I went through the links you sent me about wikipedia restrictions and I can not find anything in there that seems to apply. I am in no way profiting off these links since painandpaintings.com does not sell merchandise, ad space or even pay per clicks. Nor is it a personal site to promote anything. It is simply a very detailed source of information. So, according to what you have told me, I can not post links to this site since I helped to build it. Does that mean that other people can post links to this site if they feel it is relevant?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalendar (talk • contribs)

And PainandPaintings has the same design, same content, and a big old link to serialkillercalendar at the bottom selling all the same crap. You're the same spammer spamming the same spam you've been told a zillion times you can't do. Giving it a new domain name doesn't change anything. DreamGuy 07:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely why we have created PainAndPaintings. We wanted this website to be a source of information without selling merchandise. The only time you even see the word SerialKillerCalendar.com on the entire site is on the images of our paintings. This is not to advertise by the way, it is simply because if we do not watermark our property, everyone on the internet uses it for their own purposes. These images by the way are not even linked to SerialKillerCalendar.com. Therefore, I ask you again, what makes this a bad link. I can understand completely that you would not want me to personally link to it. I realize after reading what you sent me that this would be a conflict of interest. But if other people seem to agree with me and want to link to it, why would you take their links off? What is your rationale behind that other then spite?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalendar (talk • contribs)

Spite? You're a hardcore spammer self-promoting your own information-free site... and you added links to the site on Ed Gein to the links section, references section AND the top of the page! You're the worst type of spammer ever, and you will soon be permanently banned for this. DreamGuy 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

? I only added one link, one time and did not add another after we started this conversation. I think you better go check those IP addresses before you come back to apologize for accusing me of something like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalendar (talk • contribs)

Yeah... so I am supposed to believe that it's a coincidence that an anon IP account added the link to a bunch of sites mere minutes before you showed up, that you then readded it, and then multiple accounts readded it over and over and over. We're not idiots here. DreamGuy 08:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen pal. It doesn't even matter if you don't believe it. Those IP addresses can not be my own because I did not put in those links. And unless you know of a way to fake an IP address (which would be a pretty neat trick). Then I did not do that. Is it so far fetch that people reading this conversation might be siding with me on this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalendar (talk • contribs)

Lots of people fake IP addresses all the time. We're not idiots here. DreamGuy 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Ok I didn't know that. But honestly, it wasn't me though. I just went to the myspace page for Serial Killer Calendar and posted a note to our 15000+ myspace friends to come here and post a link because you where giving me a hard time. I'm sorry for messing with for the last hour man. I don't really care if we get our site on Wikipedia or not. We get more traffic then we can even handle now. I was just bored and thought I'd kill some time before work. No pun intended. You really are a great Wikipedia... uh... editing... guy and you should take pride in what you do. It's because people like you keep a watch out that for holligans like me that Wikipedia is a fairly trusted place for information. I am truly trying to sound sincere here man and I hope you arnt to ticked off that I messed around with you. You do good work and we are lucky to have you protecting an information resource that we are both obviously interested in. See? See how I found some common ground between us despite all our fighting? See? I'm not that bad. Later. James Gilks

Coordinated spam attack. Wonderful. Yeah, you're well on your way to a permanent block. DreamGuy 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be like that man. I said I was sorry. If it makes you feel better you can fully block me from Wikipedia. You have to admit though, aside from all our bickering and the whole, selling serial killer merchandise, SerialKillerCalendar.com is a fairly cool site. I mean, your interested in serial killers right? Obviously you are or you wouldn't be monitoring these pages so much. So man to man, you have to admit... the site is fairly cool. I already feel bad enough for messing around with you and wasting your time. I'm not a bad guy after all. I believe in Karma. My dog threw up on the floor a few minutes ago so that has to be my Karma for being a jerk. I fully and absolutely apologize to you. And I really did mean what I said before about you doing a good job. Man, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to be full of spam and incorrect facts. I'm glad there's decent people out there that take care of this stuff.

Invitation to Join WikiProject Crime

Would you like to upgrade from an honorary member to a full member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography? Your work on the Jack the Ripper and serial killers was greatly appreciated I think you would be a great asset to our project. Jmm6f488 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Myth

Explain to me just what "completely incorrect or misleading information" I added. Also, while there are times to be WP:BOLD, does that include disregarding many of the guidelines of MOS:DAB, specifically one link per item and short descriptions? Clarityfiend 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I already explained to you on your talk page a number of examples of incorrect and misleading information. If you didn't bother to read that yet, go do so.

And the Myth page is only partially a disambiguation page. It's more of a real article that also has additional entries on it that perform some of the functions of disambiguation. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to justify removing good information and replacing it with completely false information by citing disambiguation policy which has nothing to do with it. DreamGuy 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it ironic that you place a warning about personal attacks on this page and then proceed to make one on mine. I admit to not noticing that there was a talk page discussion - it's rather unusual on an article categorized as a dab. My changes may have stepped on your precisely defined toes, but it would be "completely incorrect or misleading" to characterize my edits the way you did. For example, if you search on "Myth of King Arthur", it will come up with many Ghits. And I was not "just kind of making things up."

If you didn't like what I did, you could have just reverted it without resorting to a petty tirade. In future, I suggest you Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Clarityfiend 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What personal attack? See, if I explain why it was reverted you know not to do it again, but you decide to take it as an insult, whereas if I don't spell it out in excrutiating detail people get confused (see other comments on this page). Searching for Google will find lots of hits to lots of incorrect information. This is an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be better than just random garbage found on the net. My description of your edits is 100% accurate, and you certainly are going out of your way to prove that I was right about how you act recklessly without solid information. Just admit you were wrong instead of harassing me over bringing your mistakes to your attention. DreamGuy 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

I'm curious to know what criteria you're using when deciding which Cultural References to remove from the Ferris Bueller's Day Off article. You've removed several and left several others intact but have not supplied a rationale for your decisions. Thanks. Ste3ve 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the most obviously trivial, nonnotable and worthless ones. I also tend to remove new ones just because it's easier to stay at status quo of bad instead of letting it get worse. There's a bunch more still there that also should be removed. Leaving something there isn't necessarily an endorsement of it, it's just acknowledging that I don;t have time to fix the whole thing, especially when so many people want to add so much trivial nonsense all the time. See WP:TRIVIA, WP:ENC and etc. DreamGuy 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Medusa and gorgons in popular culture

I think this laster version of Medusa and gorgons in popular culture has a great chance of surviving, I'd love your particpation in the deletion discussion. Thanks. TAnthony 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Daredevil46.jpg

I know you disagree, but I think the fair use claim on this image warrants discussion. Let's permit the image people to have their say before tagging it again for speedy, ok? -- But|seriously|folks  07:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not OK. If you think that fits fair use claims then you know nothing about Fair Use Doctrine. This is a no brainer, and it's been deleted already some 20-30 times under that file name and others. It doesn't suddenly just become not a copyright violation. And, by the way, asking if something is OK when you don't care what the response is and then going ahead and doing it without waiting for a reply is extremely rude. DreamGuy 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

At least I asked. You just reverted without even letting me know. Anyway, I couldn't exactly wait for a reply in light of your speedy deletion tag. An image can suddenly become not a copyright violation if an adequate fair use rationale is provided. There's no rush here. Let's take a few days to figure this out together and act appropriately so it's not just the opinion of one or two or three editors but community consensus. -- But|seriously|folks  17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I reverted without letting you know... Is there some policy now that I have to have your approval before I do anything? You seem to have very unrealistic ideas of how this place works. I figured you had it watchlisted, and if I was trying to hide the fact that I reverted it I certainly wouldn't have brought it up here. And an image most certainly CANNOT just suddenly not become a copyright violation... Lots of admins for many, many months saw this image as a clear copyright violation and deleted it speedily under that name and several others. DreamGuy 20:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you said I was extremely rude for acting before you got back to me, so I thought it was fair to point out that you acted before you even approached me. I didn't have the image watchlisted. I saw it again while working on C:CSD. Also, I don't understand your disagreement with the processes at work here. When an appropriate tag and fair use rationale are added to a copyvio image, it becomes legit here as fair use. If you're saying that the tag or rationale are not appropriate, that's your opinion and that's fine, but it obviously is possible to take a copyvio image and make it not a copyvio through this process. In any event, please try to settle down. This will all be resolved in time. Nothing bad will happen to anybody if this image is allowed to hang on for a few more days. -- But|seriously|folks  21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have just come back from some real life engagements and I have noted your comments on my talk page. My note of caution (which you appear to have deleted to hide the fact) was made against your bad faith returns on speedy delete tags on this image - when at leasts two admins did not like the speedy request that you had put up. I note that you have been blocked and then unblocked for disruptive edits in the past so quite frankly you should know better. In my case the warning was because you had used a less than informative and certainly very uncivil way of asking for a speedy delete request on the image. I note that you have used the edit summary to lambast admins, who like you are volunteers. Put simply you should take a couple of days to realise that where two or three admins all agree that your actions do not assist then most probably you have not quite acted in the way that you should on this occassion. Given that you continue to not take a step back and await WP:FUR as another editor suggests I am going to block you for 72 hours until you calm down and realise that harassing us is not the way to get this matter solved! --VS ^talk 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is complete nonsense. No, I didn;t delete it to hide the fact, I deleted it because it was COMPLETE NONSENSE, and it's inclusion here was only to try to give the false idea that I was breaking policy when, in fact, you were the one guilty of the thing you were warning me about. You posted something "welcoming" me to Wikipedia when I have been here for years longer than you have, and you "cautioned" me to assume good faith, when I was, but the situation was that someone with proven bad faith was uploading a frequently deleted copyright violation image over nad over and over, and yo0u, as an admin unfamiliar with that case and how copyright policy here works, were not listening, and instead of trying to discuss the situation you gave a phoney warning on my talk page. I responded on your talk page. Frankly,. it's ridiculous that you label me DISAGREEING with you and TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU why your actions were wrong as "harassment" when it's more the fact that people posting rude, highly uncivil warnings on my talk page are more of a case for harassing me. This block is completely out of process, just an example of an admin thinking he can block for no reason if someone does something he personally doesn't like, or demonstrates to others that he/she is not following policies. DreamGuy 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Continued speedy delete edit waring on Image:Daredevil46.jpg. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 15:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a blocking offense, just another example of an admin deciding to block for personal reasons and not even trying to come up with a rationale. No warning was given, just highly WP:UNCIVIL comments and bad faith assumptions about my behavior. DreamGuy 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for the record as an involved party (but not the blocking admin) that I have no objection to an early unblock here. -- But|seriously|folks  21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

72 hours is a bit excessive. Seconded. Hamster Sandwich 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

DreamGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not a blocking offense in the slightest, admin who blocked me never gave a warning other than over assuming "good faith," which I explained on his talk page was not an issue here because the person who uploaded the image did so some 20 or 30 times under different names to get around the fact that it was deleted as a copyright violation. VirtualSteve is, in fact, the one assuming bad faith here, not giving proper warnings, and just blocking someone so for personal reasons. And even if there were any rationale to a block at all, 72 hours is absolutely ridiculous, as outright vandals and other people with very clear bad faith typically don't get that kind of block. And if you check above, the admin who blocked me has falsely labeled my leaving notes disagreeing with his actions and pointing out that his behavior did not meet policy as "harassment" -- I've got one of the admins in this conflict complaining that I did edits without explaining to his satisfaction and another claiming that my attempt to explain was supposedly harassing. Disagreeing with admins is NOT a blockable offense, so this should be overturned immediately as extremely bad precedent.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Not a blocking offense in the slightest, admin who blocked me never gave a warning other than over assuming "good faith," which I explained on his talk page was not an issue here because the person who uploaded the image did so some 20 or 30 times under different names to get around the fact that it was deleted as a copyright violation. VirtualSteve is, in fact, the one assuming bad faith here, not giving proper warnings, and just blocking someone so for personal reasons. And even if there were any rationale to a block at all, 72 hours is absolutely ridiculous, as outright vandals and other people with very clear bad faith typically don't get that kind of block. And if you check above, the admin who blocked me has falsely labeled my leaving notes disagreeing with his actions and pointing out that his behavior did not meet policy as "harassment" -- I've got one of the admins in this conflict complaining that I did edits without explaining to his satisfaction and another claiming that my attempt to explain was supposedly harassing. Disagreeing with admins is NOT a blockable offense, so this should be overturned immediately as extremely bad precedent. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Not a blocking offense in the slightest, admin who blocked me never gave a warning other than over assuming "good faith," which I explained on his talk page was not an issue here because the person who uploaded the image did so some 20 or 30 times under different names to get around the fact that it was deleted as a copyright violation. VirtualSteve is, in fact, the one assuming bad faith here, not giving proper warnings, and just blocking someone so for personal reasons. And even if there were any rationale to a block at all, 72 hours is absolutely ridiculous, as outright vandals and other people with very clear bad faith typically don't get that kind of block. And if you check above, the admin who blocked me has falsely labeled my leaving notes disagreeing with his actions and pointing out that his behavior did not meet policy as "harassment" -- I've got one of the admins in this conflict complaining that I did edits without explaining to his satisfaction and another claiming that my attempt to explain was supposedly harassing. Disagreeing with admins is NOT a blockable offense, so this should be overturned immediately as extremely bad precedent. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Not a blocking offense in the slightest, admin who blocked me never gave a warning other than over assuming "good faith," which I explained on his talk page was not an issue here because the person who uploaded the image did so some 20 or 30 times under different names to get around the fact that it was deleted as a copyright violation. VirtualSteve is, in fact, the one assuming bad faith here, not giving proper warnings, and just blocking someone so for personal reasons. And even if there were any rationale to a block at all, 72 hours is absolutely ridiculous, as outright vandals and other people with very clear bad faith typically don't get that kind of block. And if you check above, the admin who blocked me has falsely labeled my leaving notes disagreeing with his actions and pointing out that his behavior did not meet policy as "harassment" -- I've got one of the admins in this conflict complaining that I did edits without explaining to his satisfaction and another claiming that my attempt to explain was supposedly harassing. Disagreeing with admins is NOT a blockable offense, so this should be overturned immediately as extremely bad precedent. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I have shortened the block but I do think you need to relax a little bit. You are being overly confrontational on a rather trivial matter. The message below of LHvU was added while I was unblocking you so you'll get mixed messages, but I also think you should avoid fiddling with this image for now. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... As there's no grounds for a block in the first place, what's the point in keeping any block? And telling me that it's shortened does me no good if you don't tell me what it's been shortened to, especially as I'd have to guess when I could edit and then get autoblocked for more hours if I guess wrong. I've already been blocked for several hours, that's well more than enough for what several admins have characterized as completely improper. I'm not asking the other admin get disciplined or anything (largely because admins seems to be able to get away with doing things with no justification on a regular basis while normal editors get blocked at the whim of whatever admin decides to freak out, so it wouldn't be worth the effort). DreamGuy 02:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The "block log" link above (in the unblock box) will tell you the duration and start time. (You can also go to "User", "History" and then the small text "View logs for this page" three lines below the user name.) And AFAIK, it's not out of process for an admin to remove a speedy deletion tag that he or she believes is inappropriate. Note that in conjunction with my second removal of the tag, I listed the image for review at WP:FUR -- my admission that I do not know everything and that several heads are better than two. -- But|seriously|folks  03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you agreeable to not deleting the subject Image:Daredevil46.jpg while it is being discussed at WP:FUR#13 July 2007, and to abiding by the consensus reached there (in which you might participate if unblocked)? If you give that undertaking I will unblock. LessHeard vanU 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As Pascal.Tesson has already reviewed the block and responded by shortening the tariff I feel that I cannot maintain my offer of unblocking (as this might constitute wheel-warring). I shall therefore strike it out. LessHeard vanU 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreeable to not deleting the image? Hey, I can't delete images anyway, just tag them for deletion, and I was only putting the tag back because it was removed out of process (no "hold on" tag, etc., just completely wiped.) DreamGuy 02:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy my response to those who have commented on this user's blocking

(Posted also on individual talk pages) Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

1. For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
2. People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [1] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.

   I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

   Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

   It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

   A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

   DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

   I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.

3. In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
4. I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
5. I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I will.

1. I see you don't comment on your "adjusted canned message" with its "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia."[2] I can fully understand DreamGuy's irritated reaction to that. Yes, the template includes a newbie greeting; so why use it? Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." There's nothing like leading by example when you call for civility from users, and your "Welcome" template use was not civil and not delivered "politely." And, er, how is it that you get to assume bad faith and tell DreamGuy he deleted your template "to hide the fact"? *I* might easily have deleted that annoying template, if you'd put it on my page, and it wouldn't have been to hide anything.
2. I didn't mean, in my original block comment on your page, to suggest that you deliberately made yourself unavailable after placing the block. Certainly not! But I did mean that it's a poor idea to place a controversial block at all when you are about to ge to bed. Let somebody in another timezone do it.
3. I notice that you have nothing to say about your failure to post what you surely knew to be a controversial block on ANI for review. That was one of my main criticisms. Altogether, you scarcely engage with anything I said. I'm sorry to see that. Since you're a new admin, I went to some trouble to make myself clear, and hoped my commentary might be helpful. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC).