User talk:DreamGuy

I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the comments are otherwise no longer relevant. 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.

Thank you

I've been watching your name pop up on the Freya article as reverting to a sane, not-sourced-to-not-quite-fiction version. Since someone of Victorian rather than Norse/Medieval values seems to be bent on sanitizing the article repeatedly, I thank you for your efforts. Yes, someone appreciates them. --Esthanya 08:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. I do what I can here and there. DreamGuy 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

I suspect that users 80.145.145.28 and 80.145.133.218 are the same person. "Their" behaviour is to go to certain pages including fringe linguistics theories and blank talk pages where other people protest the addition. I'm not sure if this is really sockpuppetry; maybe it's the same guy doing it from his computer at home and then in a different computer in college or at work, without intending to deceive. How should other editors deal with this, besides repeatedly reverting? Thank you. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Are you interested in becoming an adm.?Molotov (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There's basically no chance I would be approved as an admin. DreamGuy 07:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I can relate personally, pratically none of the best editors are given any respect or recognition in my opinion. Seeing that you have survived massive amounts of vitriol against you, I think you have done Wikipedia a justice by staying here. Molotov (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

... by the way, you congratulations on your 5,000th edit! Molotov (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I know we've had differences in the past, but I just wanted to say thanks. I admire your efforts towards WP:NPOV. Friday (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Any article in particular you are talking about here? DreamGuy 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. This edit is what I noticed. Friday (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yeah... I thought that one was pretty clear cut, especially since the Afrocentrist editor there and myself both agreed the link was inappropriate... not sure what the other guy was thinking. DreamGuy 04:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Chimera

Hello. Looks like some progress was made here. Septentrionalis made some concessions. I wonder if you could look at my proposed compromise wording for the "location" entry. (See latest comment uder Talk:Chimera#Page_protected.) Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy with no action taken. →Raul654 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad to see that these baseless accusations were ignored as "utterly unpersuasive" by admins on a 5 to 1 decision (and note that the 1 dissent was only asking to look into it longer and not recommending any action against me). I am sorry that so many people wasted their time on a complaint that was created solely for revenge purposes and, for many of the complainants (User:Gavin the Chosen aka Gabrielsimon and three or four other usernames, User:Eequor and User:Vashti, especially), a transparent attempt to remove a major voice in support of NPOV on articles that they were trying to push their own agendas on. Hopefully now they will realize that their complaints are without merit and stop making biased edits (though it helps that Gabriel has been banned for two months already). DreamGuy 05:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats also (although it was never really in doubt) I know we butted heads on occasion but your actions relating to GirlyVinyRFC/SqeaukBox thing confirmed my impression of your "decentness" and whilst I didn't get involved once the arbitation had started (SqueakBox had already lost the argument for himself by that point anyway) I kept an I eye on it just in case. --ElvisThePrince 17:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer

I doubt it matters too - aparently a new user named Call of Duty is making edits similar to Lightbringer's, but without the personal attacks. We'll certainly see. --User:Scimitar 17:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I'm not sure, and can't be sure without an IP check. Again unfortunately, I'm not in a position that a request for an IP check will neccessarily be carried out. I'll drop a note off with one of the arbitrators; hopefully they can get things moving.--User:Scimitar 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the first comment you made on Lightbringer's talk page on the suggestion of another editor; just because it's true doesn't mean it should be said (WP:NPA). Hope you don't mind. --User:Scimitar 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it would be a problem, but I just wanted to be sure. If I'm less than exact in my communication, I get all sorts of people mad at me ;) --User:Scimitar 21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Have you seen this barnstar?

Have you seen this barnstar?

The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.

Regardless of what people say about your temper, you deserve this for your massive and tireless work towards NPOV. ~~ N (t/c) 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... It's a never ending battle. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Award

I give this NPOV award to User:DreamGuy for his tireless, fearless work for the neutrality and his insistence on the necessity of scholarly references. --BorgQueen 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you deserve some recognition for your effort. Though your editwarring has been controversial you did contribute greatly for the academic quality and neutrality of wikipedia. --BorgQueen 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And thanks to you also. "Edit warring" is another one of those POVs I just see changing it back to the way it's supposed to be and not just letting someone who is doing it incorrectly win out of apathy. All it tkaes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, yada yada yada. Some people here seem to be more interested in some red tape that will maybe get something wrong fixed two months later, by which times there's already 50 more bad things to fix and a lot of readers who got bad info. That's my philosophy. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wicca Merge cleanup

Thanks for cleaning up my merge... I should have copyedited it before I dumped the cut & paste job into Wicca...--Isotope23 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not a big deal... any step in the right direction is a good step. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

user:Dark droid

Please see WP:RFM. Jim Apple 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt question

I came across your remark on Talk:Ancient Egypt. You might be interested in User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Fringe theories added by this user often aren't recognized as such because he edits a lot of low-profile articles where he goes largely unnoticed. You might be able to help out. Regards, — mark ✎ 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OMG... that guy has been putting his nonsense into hundreds of articles... It's crap like this that makes me think Wikipedia is doomed to failure, because any nut with a lot of free time on his hands can go put his insane theories all over the place and it takes a group of people to track them all down and try to undo the damage.DreamGuy 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said elsewhere; this is the most dangerous and disruptive kind of 'vandalism'. I discovered him in April this year, and warned a bunch of other editors. After some warnings which didn't work out, a lot of his contributions have been reverted on sight during May, but then he abandoned his account and started to contribute anonymously from 4.241.*.* IP's, and from then on it was only more difficult to track him down. What is worse, a lot of editors do not recognize his contributions as dangerous, probably because of his authorative tone and because he references his statements with a curious (and self-serving) mix of external links. It's very disheartening. I'm curious to know what you -as a winner of the NPOV award :)- would do in this case. — mark ✎ 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly... Try to track him down as best we can for the good of the project, but then it's a tremedous effort and I'm already spending way more time here than I should be tracking things I currently track. I think the system is inherently flawed and that it will inevitably be filled with crap as the good editors give up. It's not like we are all independently wealthy and educated with lots of free time. DreamGuy 20:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand, just thought it was worth asking. I think I agree with you that this is an inherent flaw of the system. Currently working out what that means to me. — mark ✎ 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

He was already violating the temporary ban on editing that article and others like that during the arbitration throught the use of something like four or more sockpuppets. He'll be blocked soon enough again I'm sure. DreamGuy 04:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). A couple of editors are trying to force a guideline tag on it, even though it clearly did not reach consensus and violates existing guidelines. CDThieme 01:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot back

I know you've had dealings with this disruptive editor before. Well, he has made a new account, User:Chaosfeary. Please check his contribs and see if you agree that he is Enviroknot. Yuber^(talk) 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had dealings with Enviroknot, but then Chaosfeary from what I've seen so far (mainly on Poison ivy and comments on some admin pages) doesn;t appear to be the same guy. I could be wrong, and granted I did not check out any of the Islamofascist pages, but then I never checked those out with Enviroknot either. Personally, I think that if it were Enviroknot that once I contradicted him on the Poison ivy talk page he would have immediately started insulting me like he always did. DreamGuy 04:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Inkblot.gif

I noticed you uploaded Image:Inkblot.gif some time ago, and I was wondering where you got it. And I'm guessing the reason it's public domain is because it's really old, right? Phoenix-forgotten 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wicca

Thank you for catching those new external links at the Wicca page. I missed them entirely in watching the article on my list. Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

...and another thanks is owed to you. The recent anonymous editor (IP: 207.216.22.108) left a distasteful POV contribution to Wicca, which you fixed. It is appreciated. -P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

Replying to your message, as your e-mail was not available to me.

Good afternoon DreamGuy. I would like to reply to the message you left me since I could not do so privately in e-mail. Please feel free to delete this whenever you are through with it. I rather think posting those links in commercial and personal spaces are acceptable and based on the rules of Wikipedia are not out of line. If posting them on all sub-links of Savannah as points of interest is wrong, I am sorry, but it seemed pertinent to me, especially since there is hardly any other information on those pages. I did not “spam” (as you say) any links on pages that were not somehow directly related to the subject of the links. Why you chose to pick those two links, out of many commercial and non-commercial links on the pages to dispute, I have no idea. I am sorry if you have a problem with ghost books but this one is directly related to Savannah, Georgia so it seems to me that this link would be the last one you would erase off the Savannah page. Having reviewed the “spamming” page link it seems to me that spamming would be on a much larger scale that the links I posted. If you would like I can move all of them to the bottom, if this appeases your mind. I also linked them in the external links section, this is not like I cut into every paragraph of the articles and inserted the link. I actually thought it might be of interest to people who happen to enjoy ghosts. I am not even in the employ of Cobblestone Tours or even James Caskey himself, I just thought (as a local Savannah resident who has read the book, taken the tour, and is a fan) that I should point more people who are interested in this sort of thing to the stories and experience. However, feel free to remove links that are not pertinent, if you so choose, but articles related directly to Savannah’s ghosts, I feel, are not in that category. In the future though, if you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to send me an e-mail, this information should be available to you as I filled it out when I registered.

I would also like to add that this is my first time using Wikipedia so if there is a problem here it may just be that I am not an initiate yet.

Sincerely,

Margaret

You added two different links to the same website to thirty different articles as your only edit, all in half an hour. It'd be difficult to find a more clearcut example of spam than that. DreamGuy 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note on Mummy page

Hello. Thanx for the message about the Mummy page. I have just started getting familiar with the code, and obviously I need to be careful. Regarding a different page, the Horemheb page, I happened upon the cartouches in a photo, and found that the real ones, intermix the "Blocks" of hieroglyphs, which complicates accuracy. I tried to explain it on Talk:Horemheb and tried the regular curvy line (water) n, but it didn't appear correct, visually. So I put in the Crown N (for the North, Delta (crown) ). Its accurate, but complicates the order. like I say, the blocks are intermixed, in his Cartouche.. But thanks; I'll look at the Mummy page...Michael McAnnis, YumaAZMmcannis 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Roylee

Hi DreamGuy. If you have some time, please check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee and endorse or comment as you see fit. — mark ✎ 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspicions Drop

I had suspicions on this page until I read some of your readers' discussions. Enjoy your page.--Mac Simms 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You had your what? Suspicions on what? Enjoy my page what? This comment comes from out of nowhere, I've never heard of you, and I have no clue what you are trying to say.

Also, you went and edited someone else's comments on this page -- granted, you were trying to correct someone else's spelling, but A) this is a talk page, spelling doesn't matter, B) it was in British English and was spelled perfectly correctly for where the editor was from, C) Please just don't edit other people's comments. DreamGuy 03:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Winged Bull

Sorry I put the message on the wrong page, but I'm out of wikipedia practice. Frankly, I'm not going to be upset if you delete the Winged Bull. If the permission I got isn't authoritative, then so be it, and go ahead and remove the pic. Mind you that the article will be weaker without the image. 05:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nidhogg move request no consensus

I put this already on that talk page, but am putting it here as you were the one who left comments there. If there was no consensus this article needs to be moved back to Nidhogg -- It had no consensus to be moved then either, and it was only through an editor moving it against consensus and then mucking with the redirect to prevent it from being moved back that necessitated a vote on the move request to begin with. He should have put in a move request tomove it here, but did not, therefore it should not stay here. The whole concept of needing a consensus to do something is completely turned on its head when someone does it without consensus and then demands consensus to undo it. The editor in question simply gamed the system and gets what he wants without consensus, going against the longstanding placement of the article at Nidhoogg -- this is fundamentally an abuse of the way things are supposed to work. Please move it back until such time as there is concensus to overrule the Use English rule, which will hopefully be never. DreamGuy 04:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. My reasons for leaving the page at its current location and requesting that discussion take place instead of any moves remain valid regardless of where the article originally was or whether procedure was properly followed. Any other admin is free to override my decision, though I would be surprised if they disagreed.

That it had no consensus to be moved originally may very well be right. Wikipedia does not require consensus for many if not most things that can be done; this is not "turning things on their head" but business as usual. However, what the vote clearly established is that there is no consensus for any title; this is irrespective of exactly what moves and move requests were and were not properly handled to get the article there.

Much like The Wrong Version, it appears there is such a thing as The Wrong Title. In either case, consensus should be reached before anything more is done, regardless of what originally triggered the discussion and what the status quo is. This is especially true in light of the fact that, apart from an independent problem with how Wikipedia handles its indexes, the title is of little to no consequence to our readers. There is no problem with neutrality and redirects are in place.

If you have a particular problem with the way the editor who moved it originally acted, you should take it up on an RFC. The title of the page is not what should determine who is wrong and who is right in this. JRM · Talk 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)