User talk:DreamGuy

I've deleted a welcome message and several posts from someone upset that I removed links to her site that were inappropriately added to several pages. If you feel like reading those, they are in the history.

Please add new comments below.

DreamGuy 01:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Gwine

Thanks for looking over Scipiocoon's contributions. I'm bothered by the casual use of words and phrases like "darkish dialect" and "smoky entertainment." I'm at work, and can't roam the Wiki as freely as I can at home. Glad someone else is watching out. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Joyous 13:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Election Controversy Article NPOV

Please help us improve areas that have NPOV problems on the election controversy article, if any. What specifically do you see as problems? Did you read the discussion when the parent article recently survived VfD? I find it ironic people that are voting to delete the article because of NPOV or size concerns have not helped out on the page or mentioned their concerns on the talk pages. Nothing has changed with their points and rhetoric since the parent article survived VfD. The page history will prove that Netoholic's claim clean up-ers are being reverted is false. zen master 18:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Cornwell

Could you please summarize your view on Patricia Cornwell on its talk page as outlined in the protection section there? -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:54, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ripper victim

If I remember correctly Gordon is a new member. He might not be aware of the policies regarding moves. And I could be wrong, but I think he hasn't had all that much time to respond. He was busy editing the reference sections. I'll talk to him and change the link as soon as the page is moved. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:59, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he's new. He's been going through and changing it to Catharine other places too even after seeing my concern on his talk page at least (as he responded to it, though he may have missed the explanation). I have no problem with waiting for it to be cleared up, but then if he starts hunting down all mentions of "Catherine" on other pages (suspects, famous prostitutes, people famous in death, etc.) it's just that much more to undo later. The article was previously on an article with the correct spelling, which he has since forwarded to the new one he made, so would we have to have the original deleted and the new one moved? DreamGuy 22:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title on the Ripper letters template, technically speaking the postcard wasn't a letter, but you're right. The title was misleading. I'll keep an I on the Catharine links and see how it goes. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Election article NPOV tag

You're probably getting sick of being asked, but I need to know: where in the talk page is there specific objections to the NPOV of that article? I need to know to work out whether the page should be locked or not if too many reversions happen. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, mine are in at NPOV Tag and Cleanup Preliminary Discussion -- and all I got for my trouble were peope ignoring it and insults by a guy who keeps taking the tag off. I could make a ton more, but, honestly, I only have so much time in a day to spend on something I don't get paid for, and the bias is so blatant (especially with people trying to get the page deleted for being too biased) that it should be obvious. DreamGuy 13:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Dreamguy, it looks like Ta bu shi da yu posted on your talk page about NPOV, not me. Though I did post on one of election controversy article's in question's talk page and I agree with his question. Your accusations against one frequent editor of the articles may be correct, but still, there has been very very very little reverting of POV clean ups, Snowspinner is the only person I recall really adding to or cleaning up the article with a one sentence addition. Please list specific instances of POV of other clean ups being reverted? Talk page discussions absolutely do not count as evidence for the very serious accusation that edits were being reverted, people who think there are problems with the articles really need to stop using hyperbole. zen master 18:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen-master, please scroll up on this page to see the comment you left. As far as specific evidence, I don't want to have to try to dig through the page history again, but I can assure you that it was on the article on not just the discussion page. I believe the most blatant example would be reverts that brought graphics back. But then if you are claiming that nobody is reverting changes that try to make the article less biased, I could try cleaning the page up some. But the fact that people are removing the NPOV tag of all things by claiming there is no controversy shows that some people won't let even the slightest change attempt to move toward objectivity happen. DreamGuy 23:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

George Chapman

Hi DreamGuy;

Thanks for your message regarding Dr. Thomas Neill Cream. Thanks for fixing the page up a bit too with regards to my misspelling of his name.

I've recently added an entry for George Chapman, the Polish guy listed as a possible Ripper suspect (it needed a Disambiguation because it's also the same name as some poet or other.) I did not put a huge amount about the case because I only have one book that mentions him and I can't find too much on the web other than those that list a brief description of him under the heading of 'Ripper suspects'. I'll see what else I can find to expand it a bit. I also put in a note about how he is considered a suspect by Frederick Abberline but how he is also disregarded by some as a suspect because it is unlikely a nutcase would go from ripping women open to just poisoning girlfriends. Obviously you are more than welcome to add to the cross-referencing between Chapman and Jack T. Ripper; I figure myself quite knowledgable on most things serial-killery but not so much on historical cases, so you sound like the best person to inject such Ripper-related info into the Chapman article.

Take care. User:Robert Mercer, December 23

Myth

First, Ungtss has provided a source. Second, Ungtss's motives are irrelevant to me and I believe to wikipedia policy. What matters is the NPOVness of the content. NPOV is shown through citations and compramise, not personal attacks. Do you have a source, or even a standard, which indicates that CS Lewis is not notable in regards to myths? You need to prove that CS Lewis is a bad source, not that the contributor who added him is. Hyacinth 06:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where did Ungtss provide a source? I never saw anything like that. All he did was make a blanket, unsupported statement. He should prove his side, you shouldn't be expecting me to prove a negative. As far as a source for my side, I would think lack of being taken seriously in the field, lack of references, lack of citations of his work is more than enough, but it's hard to pull out a whole lot of nothing to display to you. Should I send a box of 100 well-regarded mythology books and circle the L section of the biography to note that CS Lewis isn't in there?

I suppose one way is that his fairly extensive article here on Wikipedia (C. S. Lewis) contains no mention of being an expert on mythology or even having studied it any more than a standard classics education at the time would have covered. Adopting a few Greek myth-inspired characters for a children's fiction book (the only mention of mythology on that page) does not make anyone an expert, or else I suppose we ought to put JK Rowling up as the next "expert" on that article. None of his books (see the list there) have anything to do with mythology. Lewis' studies were elsewhere, mostly religion and not mythology, and nobody in the field of mythology uses him as a reference. That should be proof enough. Other than that, can you propose an alternative way? DreamGuy 09:23, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss problems

I'm getting pretty tired of User:Ungtss's tactics and personal attacks. You can see some of his style in Talk:creation biology or Talk:creationism or Template talk:creationism and other creationists articles that I actively edit. I was wondering if you had any ideas about how to handle this person. His inability to remain civil is really problematic. Joshuaschroeder 03:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your page. DreamGuy 03:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

(I'm Joshuaschroeder's advocate) I think we must do the RfC (I know it's somewhat useless in user matters, but we can try...) as our first step in the dispute resolution system. What do you think? --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Might as well, another long-time editor suggested it on the Myth talk page for his abusive actions there. DreamGuy 00:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've started the page here: [1]. Please help.

Ads

There is Wikipedia:External links, which also links to Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming.

When an administrator goes to the User contributors [2], or difference between revisions (clicking "compare selected versions" in the page history), there appears next to each edit which is still the most recent of each article a "rollback" button which undones the edit and creates an automated message.

I'll take a look at that edit history. Hyacinth 04:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

way too unnecessarily specific

Yes, you're probably right. Sorry. In my defense, though, I'd like to point out that I changed it from "US$10", which I find a particularly horrid hieroglyph, up there with "and/or". De gustibus... –Hajor 15:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No defense needed, I was just explaining my edit. I would agree with you that US$ is generally not something an encyclopedia article should have, and in cases where it's necessary to specify your way would be better. DreamGuy 15:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Beltway Sniper Attacks

I was working on red links for Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. and was also in the Beltway Sniper article. I understand your points, and will stand clear this time. SBTC (Sorry 'bout that chief). Thanks for your work to improve these articles and links. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 15:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Let me respond over on your page... DreamGuy 15:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Brady Campaign and Brady Center

I felt that is was important to get the information into the sniper story that some action was taken to recover something for the victims and hold the gun dealer responsible. Bushmaster will probably be more cautious in selecting who will distribute their guns also.

These are apparently two separate entities, both still in existence. They have different origins the were brought together with Brady names if I am reading the website correctly. From this website:

"The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing progun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence."

"The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry and educate the public about gun violence through litigation and grassroots mobilization, and works to enact and enforce sensible regulations to reduce gun violence including regulations governing the gun industry."

It sounds like the Legal Action Project could be involved in both, but mostly the latter. They probably have different funding and while the goals seem to be similar, in the political and lobbying worlds they would find political friends in varying camps.

See if you agree: http://www.bradycenter.org/about/

I'll fix the red in Brady article. If I can get more information, i will write a short bio to fit the red linked owner of Bull's Eye. Mark Vaoverland 16:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on naming conventions. That is a weak area for me. I wasn't involved with the Brady Campaign article, and i didn't popup when I created the Brady Center etc article. Are you going to work on it? Its unfamilar terrority to me. Vaoverland 17:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

RE: James Brady didn't found Brady Center or Brady Campaign, makes sense, since each was older org predating his injury which they renamed in his honor (and to gain better publicity, no doubt). Vaoverland 19:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Brady again

Sorry about the duplicate int link. During the night, someone working from an IP address relocated his place of birth to Daytona Beach, Florida and I was in there fixing that (after verifying that Centralia, Illinois was accurate). Vaoverland 18:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Apolgies for the edit summary

I apologize for the edit summary. If I had known it would offend people, I would have toned down the wording. Samboy 09:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that people are taking this creationism debate far too personally. In particular, I don't think the issue on that RFC page is the fact I endorsed the summary too late; I think the issue is that all parties involved aren't trying hard enough to achieve NPOV and are getting too upset over little things. Samboy 18:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's actually more to the point that a group of people are clearly trying to advance an agenda of promoting creationism and removing anything that could be construed as equal time for the other side or neutral statements that don't endorse it and then falsely pretending that that's NPOV. Ungtss has never tried to come anywhere close to NPOV from anything I have seen on pages I itneracted with him on, and his attempts to create basically a political action committee called "FACTS" to advance his POV in articles he removed himself from as a condition of avoiding his RfC is a thinly-veiled attempt to wage war on the very concept of neutrality. DreamGuy 00:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Image:Akhenaton.jpg"

Thanks for calling my attention to my error in tagging Image:Akhenaton.jpg. I have no doubt you are correct. I'll try to be more careful in the future. —Vespristiano 07:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The High Road

I'm impressed at how you're handling the harassment on your talk page. You seem to be staying calm while dealing with others who are acting childishly. Joyous 22:48, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Avoid Using terms like terrorist

Hi. I have noticed you have reverted my deletion of the word terrorist in the Tim McVeigh article. Please see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid to see why I have removed it. If POV terms like terrorist are used then one can also argue using the word martyr to describe his death. 66.194.40.3 10:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but we aren't talking about random person given the name terrorist, but someone convicted and executed for terrorism. Ignoring that fact violates NPOV. Martyr for political causes is almost always a POV term, as it implies that what they were doing is justified... it's just the conotation of the word. DreamGuy 22:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Pazuzu

Why remove the TV section/Futura reference from the Pazuzu entry? It seems just as relevent as all of the other pop culture references. ((Also, how do you sign something in MediaWiki?)) (was unsigned, but by User:Troublekit)

I'm replying to you there on the talk page. To sign something type four ~ symbols in a row. DreamGuy 06:04, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Troublekit 07:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Harpy

Good work on the Harpy article man :) FrancisTyers 00:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I have time to round up an image or two for that also. DreamGuy 02:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Warning on including POV terms

Please stop using the word terrorist in the description of Tim McVeigh. Please see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid to see why. If you continue, you will be blocked. This is your last warning. 66.194.40.3 09:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are an anonymous user with absolutely no power to block anyone. Multiple editors have reverted your changes because you are the one violating Wikipedia policy. You aren't even a registered user, let alone an admin. Please don't bother trying to scam me, because I'm not that stupid. DreamGuy 10:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, AND, if you'd go to the page you linked to and actually read it, you'd see that it is not a banned word, and instead has the support of many editors, especially in clear cut cases like someone conivcted in a court of law for terrorist attacks and executed. There is no denying that McVeigh is a terrorist. None at all. And from your edits on other pages it is clear that you support the terrorists and that you are only making edits to try to force your extremely biased (and disgusting) point of view into this encyclopedia. Go away, because your edits will not stay, whether it is me or someone else who changes them. DreamGuy 10:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours because of POV pushing

Please make the time you are blocked usefull and read our policies and procedures. 66.194.40.3 10:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for that trick. DreamGuy 10:46, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

And, no great surprise, User:66.194.40.3 himself got banned for impersonating an admin thanks to that little stunt. In the meantime, the changes he was trying to ensure would stay by attempting to scare me off from editing them were changed by three other editors. It just doesn't pay to try to pull a dumb scam like that. DreamGuy 11:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

amazing huh? even I agree with you on that one ( oh, and officially he got banned for 3rr in that case "excessive violation") Gabrielsimon 11:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, more than one admin tried to ban him at the same time, one for excissive reverts, another for impersonating an admin for the above scam. He was reported for multiple violations on multiple pages. DreamGuy 11:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

And don't you go and get banned for 3RR yourself, the admins already know that he signed on with a new IP address, they can take care of it now. DreamGuy 11:45, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

ill leave it be, the last thing i did might have irked whoever it was... jusst he said how its all right to say he was cnvicted of terroism, but o9mitted the word and tried to make the sentance bad for it ,so i changed it to reinsert the word.... just a little stupid fun... besides, the more i read on that fuckwit, the more i dislike timmy's views, and escpscially tactics... its...revolting. Gabrielsimon 11:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about the block, DreamGuy. You might just have asked my to do the 4th revert for you. I do think the 3rr should be strictly observed, even in blatant cases like that: the more outrageous the edit, the more users will be willing to revert it instantly, so you shouldn't need to go beyond 3 reverts in any case. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i do not beleive he got blocked, considerig an anon user said that. Gabrielsimon 16:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look -- I apologized like three times for blocking you. Yes, maybe I should have blocked you for less than 24h. You have my full support for fighting the McVeigh-was-not-a-terrorist edits. Anyhow, blocking you for less than 24h would still have exposed us to criticism for taking sides. The 3RR is intended as an extreme limit, you shouldn't even get near it, normally. You broke it accidentally, and were blocked for 24h, that's it, nobody is calling you an edit-warrior or anything, so I hope you can just forgive me for issuing the block and move on. regards, dab (ᛏ) 14:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand you'll get criticism no matter what you do, but a fourth "revert" that can only be considered a revert as a technicality in no way, shape or form deserves a 24 hour block (or whatever it really was, since I was still blocked past the 24 hours until I complained), compared to the fact that the other person got blocked for 24 hours for 8 highly POV reverts against consensus, impersonating an admin (with the false block claim above) and so forth and so on. As I explained elsewhere, I would accept a block if it made you feel like you were somehow being more fair, but a 24 hour block is absolutely ridiculous. First offense violations of the 3RR have been anywhere from 3 minutes (for 30 reverts!) to 8 hours in previous cases. And, worst of all, you go and post a comment like the above to my talk page in response to private emails I sent to you about the issue, and when I was blocked well past my 24 hours and could not respond to you here.

This was handled extremely poorly. You really need to look at standardizing block periods so they aren't so completely arbitrary and bizarre. And if you are worried so much about not offending a known vandal who was posting false block reports and so forth that you are willing to block dedicated editors the same amount of time, your priorities are majorly screwed up and it's no wonder so many good editors have left out of frustration while the people who don't think twice about breaking any rule they can are still here.

And, yes, I am so thoroughly disgusted that I may just give up. DreamGuy 01:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Medusa Edit

Wow that was a pretty dry edit to the Medusa page. I agree it needs a lot more and there are so many versions of the tale [as with all myths] that some facts can get skewed but, really--a little literary voice doesn't hurt. 16:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ø

Hi... encyclopedias typically don't have "literary voice," if what you mean by that is the part that was there about fountaining blood from a decapitated stump of a neck or whatever it was that used to say. It's like they say on Dragnet: "Just the facts, ma'am." DreamGuy 01:39, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Mythology is an oral tradition---not so much about hard and fast "facts". It's true there are some basic things that should be adhered to, but a little embellishment in the form of strong description doesn't interfere with that. Part of the fun is the gore. 17:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ø

You are talking about styles of storytelling when you should be concerned with encyclopedia style. We're here to give information about topics, not to emulate their style of writing. I would also disagree strongly that "gore" is a typical part of mythology, as very often those details are entirely glossed over. DreamGuy 17:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

Lately you have been reverting my edits on creation science for no reason. Discuss these edits on the talk page before you revert again. My edits are very well-explained. Dispute resolution involves discussion, not only reversion. Bensaccount 14:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, but that's a lie. I have always given reasons, and we've discussed them previously on the talk pages extensively. The problem is that you always insist upon restoring parts that the talk page has already reached consensus on that they violate NPOV policy. It's the exact same issue that was already settled. DreamGuy 02:32, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up Amphisbaena

Hey DreamGuy!

Could you organize the sources for Amphisbaena by what age they came from (ancient greek, medieval, et al) or by some other schema so that we can identify the "chaff" in an NPOV manner? I would really like to see all the info still there, but you are the one to put it in the right context.

My son is putting up his own article as a school assignment, and I fear he has gotten his info from "extremely bad" sources - but I want to know why they are bad.

Thanx

--Dbabbitt 17:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

RFPP

I'm sorry if I have offended you, but all I was saying is that you have to cool down. As far as I know it is against policy to revert while the page is locked. "Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice." Wikipedia:Protected page. So we can't revert back to the old version, your version. The difference between your last edit and his [3] (which was protected at) is so small (in size) yet contentious (at least in the anon's eyes) that some more discussion should be had before a unilateral revert by an admin. If you can find an admin that will revert while protected then more power to you. The anon may be acting annoyingly skirting blocks, but we must still follow policy. BrokenSegue 02:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The admin who locked it changed it immediately before locking it, so the difference between doing that and once it's locked is negligible. Your argument would make more sense if the admin just showed up and locked it without jumping in him/herself. Besides which, the anon edits actions are very clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules and not supported by anyone else. Making fun of me when I am reporting the situation is not a good way to try to make me calm down. If everyone had followed policy in the first place (banning the anon user immediately for impersonating an admin instead of waiting around, erasing his edit when he came back after violating a block, not blocking me for the same amount of time for no reason, editing the article back to consensus versus before blocking, etc.) then there wouldn't be the problem. DreamGuy 14:07, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nix

I see that you have asked Salleman for sources about his additions. In case you're in doubt about the scholarly value of the information, Salleman has added some common encyclopedic information about the Nix. If he had added bogus info on the Scandinavian folklore articles, I would have interfered :).--Wiglaf 07:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Mythical Chronology of Greece

I don't think this article is sheer nonsense - classical writers did try to make out chronologies of the events of ancient mythology, and for some things, at least, there were clear traditional dates. I agree that the article which currently exists is very problematic, and that Argyros seems to be trying to promote a particular viewpoint (he has also changed Biblical chronology in bizarre ways), but I don't think the enterprise itself is completely worthless - a timeline of the chronology that the Greeks constructed for their mythological events would be useful. What Argyros has done verges on original research, and there's particularly dubious synchronisms suggested in the parentheticals, but I think the article itself can be saved. john k 16:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

We disagree strongly then. Any attempt to give real world dates to things that were only myths is doomed to failure. I believe Argyos is a well known netkook (who goes by a variety of names) who believes that the Greek gods were all actual human beings and all the myths are just retellings of historical fact. This view goes completely against what basically every scholar on the planet says. DreamGuy 23:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Us giving dates is, indeed, wrong. Using dates which were used by ancient historians as traditional dates of things would be valid, so long as it is clearly marked. I agree that Argyros seems to be a kook. But I don't think the idea of a chronology, so long as it is clear we are listing a traditional chronology, rather than a real one, would be valid. For instance, the list of High Kings of Ireland is not a real list, but there's a tradition as to the dates, so it makes sense to list it, so long as it is done in a manner where it is clearly marked what is actual history, and what is myth. Same thing for the Roman kings, the legendary kings of Britain, and so forth. john k 00:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

in the case of dream guy being right, then the calendar that we go in must be changed, for it is " 2005 AD" after death of christ, as they say, and well, hes a myth. ( you cant say heracles is a myth and say JC isnt, its all just old stories.

Gabrielsimon 05:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

More issues with images

I think you need to slow down on uploading images and learn more about copyrights and appropriate usage, because you are doing things that are just not kosher.

For example, you took a picture of a werewolf mask and claimed the copyright owner released it under license... except the problem there is that taking a picture of a copyrighted work -- in this case, a mask -- does not give you a copyight on the image itself. You'd have copyright to the part you did that was artistic, but the original mask copyright is owned by that creator, and you can't use it without their permission.

And, for the love of god, stop putting pics of some model in cheesey costumes onto a bunch of article pages (for example, Pixie) as they are really bad. DreamGuy 20:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The photographer of the werewolf expressed his willingness to me that it could be under any license, as long as it was credited to him as being the creator of the image. Until you have actual substitutes for "cheesy" costumes, something is better than nothing. -- user:zanimum

i disagree, showing images that are in bad taste or bad form are much worse then nothing, for they tend to trivialize things Gabrielsimon 00:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A photographer taking an image of someone else's work doesn't give them the copyright. And to top it off, you aren't even the photographer either? Unbelievable. And, actually, nothing is a whole lot better than something butt ugly and juvenile. DreamGuy 05:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

duude, hell has frozen over, we are in complete argreementaboutthis! Gabrielsimon 06:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey how have you two been doing. I decided to drop in after a while, hopefully noone thought I was dead. lol. Dbraceyrules 01:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Ha!

Nice try, bub. I've got the whole catigory saved. Once you delete it, I'll just putit back up again! (unsigned, but was by User:Wack'd About Wiki)

Play nice, gentlemen. Wikipedia is not a playground. Categories that are redundant shall be deleted by admins, such as myself. Users who recreate article may be banned from editting. And again, please sign your "talk" edits. with ~~~~ - UtherSRG 20:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Play nice, gentlemen"? Why are you seemingly including me in the chastisement you gave to the person who posted this here? DreamGuy 03:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about this message. It was someone else. Sorry for blameing you, but you know, I saw what you wrote on my talk page. And even if you didn't delete my category, I had no right to create one [category] that was so similar [to another category] in the first place. I'm sorry, I didn't know. And, User:UtherSRG, the reason I didn't sign my name was because I didn't know how, and if you told me, I didn't read your posts or didn't see them. I will sign my name now. --Wack'd About Wiki 08:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• PS: DreamGuy doesn't deserve chastisement.

RE: Castor Oyl

Why do you feel this article need to be merged? There's not really anywhere ot put it in the Popeye article, and Olive Oyl and Bluto have their own articles as well (Castor is an important character in the original comic strip, not the cartoon) --FuriousFreddy 00:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. DreamGuy 03:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you're still here

Hey DreamGuy, glad to see you're still on Wikipedia. Based on your comments on your profile it seemed you were ready to go away at the beginning of the month. I understand if you have to slow down--I haven't been on here much this month, due to a busier life than usual. But you seem to be one of the most intelligent, reasonable people on here, not given to impulsive acts of anger and yet not afraid to speak your mind and call an edit, addition, or method of dealing with Wikipedia issues inappropriate or plain stupid when it is. Plus, it's good to know there is someone knowledgable who is interested in mythology articles and the werewolf/otherkin/therianthropy articles, as I am, striving to deal with them in an objective, factual way (as much as can be done with those types of articles).

Thank you for your contributions and valiant effort at being amicable when coming into disputes. I hope that you find a way to balance sticking around here and not wearing yourself down.Putrescent stench 16:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

im quite glad your sticking around too. someones gotta keep the stupid minkeys in line. specilly the trolls!

Gabrielsimon 18:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys... I had cut my watchlist items way back, but then as I edited them I saw links to others that had been added, so I checked them out and mafe changes. My watchlist is now back up to the same size, just with a lot of the articles that caused me the most stress missing for now. Of course now that Timothy McVeigh was unprotected we have the anon user who doesn't think he should be called a terrorist and thinks they are martyrs to his cause (and whose lies and distortions got me blocked unfairly earlier, which caused most of my earlier stress) is back and doing the same nonsense. I wish all the people who said I hadn't needed to get into a revert war over it because my side was obviously correct and others would make my changes for me would actually do so. DreamGuy 21:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bathory

i did hear ( well, read) that Bathory exnguinated the blood of virgins and bathed in it, in the hopes of remaining young... and it is plauibl that she drank of the tubs contents...

Gabrielsimon 07:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people heard that, but that part is most likely just stories that got spread around, as there's no real evidence to support it. DreamGuy 17:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

rudenesses

on the werewolf talk page, may i suggest getting that rather rude user reported for lack of civillity and profanity? Gabrielsimon 20:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey DreamGuy

Bathory is probably one of my favorite characters in history. She was a descendant of Hungarian , in the Báthory family of course, the other noble family of Hungary besides the Esterhazy clan. To be exact, she killed 614 girls, the most prolific female serial killer in history, and perhaps the second deadliest (only beaten by Thug Behram. She was only punished in 1610, after her evil plots had haunted the people for decades. As punishment for her actions, he was nailed in a closet (in her palace) for four years until she had died. I hadn't read the article on Wikipedia, and I'm sure this stuff is on here. But I wanted to give you this info from two great sources. 1). a webstite at http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/bathory.html. 2). an excellent book I had read. I'll put it in MLA format for you.

Twiss, Miranda. The Most Evil Men and Women in History. New York: Michael O'Mara Books. 1998.

The ISBN is 1854794884.

Take care, (please respond)

Dbraceyrules 20:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, most of what is out there about Bathory is not very reliable. I'm one of the editors of the Bathory page here and have done a lot of reading about it. In fact I've written books and magazine articles mentioning to her. For the most reliable sources out there I recommend Dracula Was a Woman by McNally ISBN 0070456712 (book) and www.bathory.org (website). Of course the article here on Erzsébet Báthory isn't too shabby either.DreamGuy 05:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Therianthropy

Hello again. I was browsing through pages out of personal interest when I noticed you in the page history. It appears that you posted the following edit summary: "added POV language to recent edits to make it clear that these are beliefs and not necessarily true." Now, I understand that doing so would make sense, but your acceptance that you are adding a PoV to an article (and this, in my opinion, is not) worries me in the extreme. Therefore, I must recommend that you both stop rampaging through articles related to otherkin and read something on Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Falcon 22:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. If you had bothered to look at the change you mention above, you would see that it was clearly making it more NPOV and not POV. I had a typo in the edit description area, as those are more dificult to catch as they do not show up on preview any different than when first entered. MAking it "clear that these are beliefs and not necessarily true" is CLEARLY making something NPOV, and looking at the edit you would see that that's exactly what I did. For you to try to use that to claim that I am knowingly putting POV into articles when it is clear I am doing just the opposite is simply absurd. DreamGuy 03:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

John Doe

Why'd you edit out my line? I know the show didn't last long or was very well known, but at least two of the others listed weren't that famous either. unsigned, but left by anon user User:83.195.7.236

Mentioning the failed TV program John Doe on the Jack the Ripper page just because one solitary episode claiming to be based upon some facts from the Ripper case but botched them all is pointless subtrivia that doesn't belong on the page, as per my explanation in the edit comments. Two of other the others may not be that famous but they are considerably more famous than that... And it may be that some of the others were removed by me but put back, it's possible I may have to go back and delete more. DreamGuy 07:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Missing sun myth

Sorry to bother you, DreamGuy, but could you please stop altering the above article? A "myth" cannot be a "motif" in a "myth". The "Missing Sun myth" (note upper case) is a myth that has different versions in various mythologies. I can see why you might not want the link to go to the mythology article, because of the definition of "mythology" given on that page, then make it link to the myth article without changing my text, as it does not make sense your way. (i.e.: A myth cannot appear in a myth, only in a mythology.)

I see you did not bother to edit the Amaterasu article that now, thanks to your unnecessary edit, redirects to an article with a different name. Might it be that your superior sources on mythology neglect Japanese mythology and so you are afraid to edit articles on a subject you do not understand? The general consensus among other Wikipedians who have edited the article seems to be against you, so I don't see why you have to be so pedantic about it.

EDIT: And "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Remember that? Just because the article on a particular subject defines it as something, does not mean that that is the only definition of the word. A mythology (pl. mythologies) is a body of myths from a particular culture. It means more than just the name of the science of studying them. Surely before editing the Wikipedia articles on mythology you should have tried looking the word up in a dictionary. The word I used was not "akward". The Japanese call what I meant "神話" (shinwa), but they call what Wikipedia defines the word as, and what you took to heart, "神話学" (shinwagaku), to mark the ditinction with the use of a language that recognizes it.

--elvenscout742 28 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Sorry to be bothered by someone as ignorant as you, but what you are claiming above makes no sense. In fact I can't even fathom how you think what you say above is an argument against my edits. I did not edit the Amaterasu article at all, I didn;t do anything to redirect it. And there is no "gneeral consensus" on that page, just you (who got the title wrong in the first place) and some whacko nutjob going around unddoing my edits because I dared to not let him make claims about Planet X and reptile aliens as if they were true. And of course Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that still doesn't mean your usage was right, and it has nothing to do with these Japanese phrases. Go edit Japanese articles if you want to try to use Japanese definitions in place of the English ones.

AND new posts always go to the bottom of talk pages. DreamGuy June 29, 2005 02:42 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

I've left him a little note on his talk page - not about you specifically, but his general behaviour - assuming that he leaves it there long enough to read it. If things are getting bad enough, you might want to consider looking around and asking those who are having problems with him, getting together and putting up a RfC as a means to trash it out in an open forum. Read the procedures carefully before putting one up, as certain criteria need to be fulfilled before the RfC can proceed, and you really don't want to get caught out on technicalities, especially since he'll be all over you if you do. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 11:42 (UTC)

Deleting talk messages

Hi, I assume that I am the editor who knows that his comments are "unwanted, unhelpful and annoying" according to your edit summary. Please accept my assurances that I knew no such thing, and that my comments are intended to help, not harass. Also, note that these words actually describe how you react to my comments, not the comments themselves. So, my comments could become helpful at any time, just by you deciding you want to be helped by them. Anyway, the point of this message is to tell you that many folks consider deleting your talk messages to be bad behavior. Especially if it makes it appear that you're trying to hide legitimate complaints that other users have made about your editing behavior. This is a community, we need to all try to get along. Cheers, Friday 17:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to try to get along, but I am deleting the comments from editors who are in no way, shape or form even trying. They are simply posting harassing comments, and have been for many months (you can see the history of this talk page). I'm sorry if I deleted your comment in the process, but it seemed like more of the same. I do not need lectures on not being rude from people who are being rude in the process. The gang of three making most of the comments recently have proven themselves to be completely unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy and instead want to insult others when people change their errors. Unfortunately that's pretty common here. These three have gone above and beyond any reasonable reactions, and I have instituted a policy (or rather started it back up again) where any of their comments are removed unread, so hopefully they get the idea that they are wasting their time with their harassment. Check their history of edits and comments on their talk pages from other editors. Their harassment and inability to work with others is clear to see. DreamGuy 18:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I was being overly harsh. Believe me, I've seen what it's like to deal with difficult editors. Friday 13:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC has been opened against you - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. Note; the opener did not inform you of this. ~~~~ 01:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

there was no point he would likly have deleted my wwarnong without reading it. Gabrielsimon 01:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

True. Now I'd like to know what happened to it... elvenscout742 11:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi DreamGuy,

Just to let you know that the RfC got prematurely deleted earlier today, but this was a mistake over a technicality. It has now been restored again, so I would also invite you to fill out your response at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2.

Looking at some of the comments here and on related talk pages, I can see that you have been in dispute with some of the users bringing the RfC for some time. I would suspect that there has been some provocation, but my initial impression is that the issues concerning personal attacks could do with being addressed. Hopefully the RfC can work to clear the air.

If you would like any advice on how to proceed, drop me a note on my talk page. Although I may already be too involved with this RfC, so you might prefer to get assistance from another editor or someone from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. -- Solipsist 23:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Not much to say. I already had one RFC in the past from abusive editors who decided to continue their harassment by making pointless complaints via the RFC process. People replying to this current one already overwhelmingly reject what these people have to say, so nothing to do other than to once again continue to ignore their harassment. DreamGuy 04:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which RFC you were reading. The latest one I can see appears to suggest that fault could be found with both sides. You should not see yourself as blameless in this situation. I recommend trying the one revert rule. It'll help everyone get along. Friday 05:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I may accept some blame, but solely for letting myself get goaded into responding with an insult here or there as a response to their constant insults and harassment. Once they stop their harassment (as hopefully they will do now that they see that their claims of being in the right are clearly disregarded as nonsense) then there will be no more problems. DreamGuy 05:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks DreamGuy, that looks like a helpful response to the RfC. -- Solipsist 08:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

a question

how would you change words about areal wolf hunting to be emtionless enough for submission here? you seem to have a knack for it. and example is ( and this crap is true btw) "hunters routinely chase entire packs of wolves until; the wolves themselves are too exhausted to move, and thereafore defenceless, then they ( the "hunters") land, and walk up and shoot the wolves, at point blank range, excecution style." Gabrielsimon 09:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You can't treat me like crap for months and then come asking me to help you out. Go ask one of your buds who filed the ridiculous RfC. DreamGuy 13:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Medusa

hi DreamGuy, i've answered on Medusa on my talk page. Thanks. Xah Lee 11:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar deletion, Page Archive

I saw where you had deleted my awards, but forgot one, so I had taken the liberty of deleting that one also as you wish not to be affiliated with me anymore. Also, you should consider archiving your talk page because this is too long at 51KB, as the preferred size is 32KB. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Last time I tried to archive the page, you and your buddy Gabrielsimon kept reverting it back to the non-archived version, among all your other harassing edits, and now you are suggesting that I should have archived it already? Gee, thanks for the helpful tip there. DreamGuy 20:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

ok, oh, queenh of sarcasm, listen good, casue im only saying this once, I have yet to harass you even a little, and furthermore, i only changed things back becasue yoiu REFUSED, quite pig headedly, to respond to SIMPLE questions. learn how to be more polite, and this wont happen. Gabrielsimon 20:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)