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.

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)

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)

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)

Thank you

Thank you for your work on reverting all the additions of people.noteroom.com and their associated removal of valid links. Keep it up. --PTSE 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

thanx

If I didn't think barnstars were so insipidly stupid, I'd award you one for dealing with User:Evmore and the situations created by the same. I don't have the patience for that. -- Krash 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Myths and other stories

Nice job on summarising the issues. I will read through them and think about it. At present my general feeling is I don't mind giving alternative meanings some air time but i would not want common usage to take precedence over academic usage. It means wikipedia looks very amateurish. Somehting that must be avoided if it is to have any credibility. David D. (Talk) 08:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot

Howdy, DreamGuy. Given the escalating situation on Bigfoot, I've decided to go ahead with an RfC on Beckjord's behavior. It's located here and is not yet "live". I want to be as thorough as possible, and as you can probably guess, collecting diffs is a tedious task. Your help would be greatly appreciated. If you do help out, please edit only the evidence sections, and don't sign or endorse anything just yet. Other than that, make changes as you see fit. Thanks. android79 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I responded to your message regarding the Mythology page on my talk page, if you didn't see it already. android79 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I, Kerowyn, award this The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar award this barnstar for tireless efforts in reverting vandalism, squelching sockpuppets and generally making Pseudoscience and Mythology marginally more sane places to be.

I assume you'll have no objections if we take this matter directly to the ArbCom? android79 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The request is up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Beckjord. Feel free to add a statement, or to remove your name if you no longer wish to participate. Thanks. android79 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Me & X images

I reposted the Me & X images you posted on Jan. 9 at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 January 16 for more discussion. Can you please add your thoughts again if you want to. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see the guy is complaining about being "harassed" and so forth. Gosh, we're just so horrible for not letting him waste Wikipedia server space so he can put up a personal photo album of tons of pics of himself that can never be used in an encyclopedia. It's admins like him that give the rest a bad name, feeling entitled to break rules themselves while trying to enforce rules on others arbitrarily. We can only hope the guy gets a clue or leaves. DreamGuy 07:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

Hey, sorry about the mixup at Satanic ritual abuse -- there is apparently some bug in the software, because when I tried to save the version with the bare wikilink moved from under the category tags to the "See also" section, it should have told me that you had already saved a version in the meantime, but it didn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mop

I just got promoted, feel free to let me know when you need help with admin stuff. - Haukur 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. DreamGuy 06:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your recent post on Android's page

DreamGuy, if you'll let me know whether you have explicitly asked Elonka and/or Petros471 to stop posting on this page, I'll be happy to tell both of them that any continued posting amounts to harassment. (I see your edit summaries when removing the posts, but I'm talking about asking on your/her page — not everybody reads edit summaries.) Everyking was recently blocked for harassing me on my page, for rather less than what Elonka is doing, with her "7th attempt". She's free to disapprove of your removal of her posts, but that's it--she's not free to harass you about it, nor to badmouth you elsewhere, either. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Yup, on their talk pages, I told both to not post here again. More than just Elonka's continued harassment, I am concerned about Petros471 pretending to be a mediator when he/she is suspiciously new here and I already told him that I don't accept some newbie who doesn;t understand policies trying to pretend to be official in some way. I would like him to remove the info on his talk page claiming ongoing mediation when he has no power to do so and I explicitly told him I would not accept him mediating anything. DreamGuy 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, my understanding is that anyone can offer to mediate any situation, but accepting their mediation is purely at the discretion of those involved in the dispute. So there may be a thin line between "pretending to be a mediator" and offering to help. Still, once it's clear that one or both parties aren't interested in the mediator, they really ought to let it drop. Friday (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now, just so there is no confusion, posted to the talk pages of the two individuals involved explicitly telling them not to edit my talk page and that I reject some self-declared mediator who clearly doesn't understand policies and has only been here a month and a half. Here are warnings: Elonka: [1] Petros: [2]. Any further attempt on their behalf to post here or pursue this sham "mediation" will be reported as harassment. DreamGuy 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As Friday says, and as I've already written to Petros, I'm not really concerned with the "official standing" bit either: anybody can mediate, if they manage to earn and keep the trust of the involved parties. (An important if.) It may come as a shock to you, but all mediators in this place are basically self-appointed.

Note that I'm not reviewing the whole AfD dispute Elonka considers she has with you; it's the present situation that concerns me, after running across your post on Android's page, and it looks a lot like like harassment to me. (Btw, Android sounds like he's reviewing in greater depth than I've done, so I hope he weighs in too.) If there's more of it from either of them after the warnings I've posted, I will block the culprit. As for the putative "mediation page", it's such a sham that I'm quite prepared to delete it without further ceremony. In the interest of keeping everybody happy, though, I've given Elonka a chance to move her own material on it to a better place, and Petros a chance to show good will by himself marking his page for speedy deletion. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

I will take a closer look at the whole AfD mess when I have the time; I have a feeling this is going to end up as an RfC. I concur with Bish, the "mediation page" looks more like a "let's gather dirt" page, and it needs to go. Please try to remain as civil as possible with these folks, even if they continue with this behavior; you've got plenty of admins monitoring this. android79 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks folks... the situation does seem eerily similar to the RFC Gabrielsimon tried against me last summer. DreamGuy 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth and Mythology

Cultures cannot believe; the people of a culture can. I am more than willing to change the def, no need to bring it to my talk page.

As far as Codex, he's a pain on Noah's Ark as well. He gets the bit in his teeth and he's just plain aggrevating. He is careful not to violate WP:3RR. As far as what can be done, be more persistant than he. An Rfc is all that can be done otherwise, and frankly he's borderline for an Rfc right now. He seems to have droppped the dates and the newer/later stuff, so progress, however grindingly slow, is being made.

Let me know if I can ever do anything to help, and if I'm ever wrong about something just tell me - I prefer the encyclopedia be accurate, truly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, cultures DO believe. Cultures are made up of people. Saying people believe is already included by saying culture, unless there is some culture out there that doesn't contain people. But, more importantly, it has to be a cultural group of some sort. One person or a small group that doesn't rise to the level of a culture of some sort do not have myths, they have folklore or superstitious beliefs or delusions or something depending upon the specifics. It's inherent to the definition.

And, frankly, I CAN'T be more persistent than he. I'm already stretched to the breaking limit as it is, and with Codex and JHCC taking turns to push their religious goals and historical revisionism and try to change defnitions and go against consensus, I can't keep up, and my reverts are already all spent almost immediately. I'm a extremely frustrated that we had all that discussion on the talk page about the importace of not changing the academic definition and not pushing POV and agreeing on what to do, and they are running around changing things left and right based upon complete nonsense. Why did we even have the discussion if these two editors ignore what the eight or ten or more editors had to say on the matter? DreamGuy 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had thought this was almost to resolution? I have to admit I have not been tracking the changes. Do you need a third opinion? David D. (Talk) 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned yes, but it would be a fourth, if you count Codex, altho he hasn't weighed in on this bit yet. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We HAD a resolution, but JHCC and Codex are ignoring the consensus that was established. Yes, we need help here... desperately. DreamGuy 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm very wary of stepping into this one as it seems to be quite a lively place! However I'd like to change the line that says "In common usage....".The most common usage that I know is the term "Urban Myth' which doesn't refer to something that is untrue but something who's truth is hard to determine due to the lack of specifics of the case and the undocumented way the knowledge has been passed on. All I want to say is "may be untrue". I've put this on your talk page as I don't want to get savaged!

Thanks for your comments on the Religious Tolerence websit problems. After trying to e-mail you and realising I didn't know how to do it I did eventually reply on my talk page. Basically I think the Verifyability proposal needs to be got rid of as it's the first step to censoprship. I think allowing blanket bans on sites will make for lazy editing - as it is these references will only survive if they survive the rigours of the current system! How can it be put forward for deletion? I think it's open to misinterpretation just being left there. SOPHIA 09:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi. You've restored the NPOV ("(restoring NPOV tag, because problems never resolved.... plus absolutely insane to use Encyclopedia Mythica as a source, that's a craptastically bad website / original research.... cite original source)"),

However, you've failed to point out what exactly makes it a NPOV. You should point out where exactly are those lines unacceptable, not just say that some place is unacceptable as a source. Furthermore, Encyclopedia Mythica isn't even posted there as a source. And saying it's so either would mean that EM has a very similar article or that you're simply assuming.

Even more, I have strongly disagree and arguemented my views in the Religion and Mythology's discussion page, those arguements have not yet received an answer. If you claim the article needs a NPOV then you have to point out the problematic part, not just make such a claim! It's impossible to dispute the NPOV then. 213.35.250.10 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Do you have anything to add to Beckjord arbitration....Bishonen mentioned that her image gallery had been vandalized by Beckjord after she blocked him. I already put in a bunch of diffs on the evidence page and didn't want to hog them all, so if you want to mentioned Bishonen's comment to me, that would be great. It's a tedious chore but we should all voice our thoughts, especially with the level of personal attacks he has waged.--MONGO 12:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand all the hoops arbitration expect out of people... my original comments on the RfAr already listed tons of evidence, and so did lots of other people, and now we're supposed to start from scratch? Copy and paste what we said there over there, that's more than enough toprove our points. Between the RfAr and the RFC we put together it should be done already, shouldn't it? DreamGuy 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone who signed a statement needs to provide evidence. Trust me, after his most recent tirade, I'll be coming up with enough evidence for all of us. android79 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with DreamGuy here. Once a case has been accepted and an evidence page created, no arb is ever again going to look at the statements painstakingly prepared for the Request. (An arb told me this.) So the common notion that you need a complete reformulation for your actual evidence has to be mostly aesthetic, IOW absurd extra work. Copypaste with some up-to-the-minute stuff added is surely good enough. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

I got the up to the minute stuff from today's tirade and I think sme other newish things. Do we have anything from the RfAr that hasn;t been recycled into the A itself yet? Somebody should pick up whatever else maybe left of the old parts.DreamGuy 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My Mistake

Dreamguy, I was the one who put the link to the forumboard, my mistake. MarcusTCicero 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a biggee. DreamGuy 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For all admins looking into Elonka's harassment

See Template:Mesopotamian mythology and its talk page... I had a dispute with another editor, explained my edits in the edit comments, and was called a vandal by this guy. Elonka showed up to revert me (when the other guy would have been blocked for 3RR if he had done it), and then she tried to pretend to be a neutral outside party, like a mediator, instead of the person with a highly emotional revenge RFC based upon misunderstandings of how things work in the works. Looks like she plans on stalking me like Gabrielsimon used to do, inserting herself into any conflict I have with anyone to escalate it to try to get back at me. It'd be one thing if this were an article or even a topic she was previously involved in, but she has no knowledge of it and is conveniently deciding automatically that what I say has no merit without looking into it.

Oh, also, FYI: The guy who I had the conflict with on that template apparently claims that Bishonen, Android, Haukur and some other unnamed admins are all my sockpuppets, the idea possibly planted by Elonka herself, because I don't enough know where this guy would have even heard of these people. DreamGuy 13:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And apparently the guy I am in a conflict with there is blindly reverting all of my improvements to Ereshkigal and Template:Mesopotamian myth (monsters) (he has a whole string of these templates witht he same basic problems) also. And also reverting Tiamat to reinsert the bad template. DreamGuy 14:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as your sock, I'm watching, and thinking of posting a message on ANI about this lot. I don't think Elonka reverted the template because she was stalking you, but because she'd received this remarkably frank advice to do it, just 8 minutes earlier. I don't think Geogre's going to like this, btw; only a couple of weeks ago, I was his sock.[3] :-) Bishonen | talk 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Oh shit, the truth is out! DreamAndroidBish79GuyOnen 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord

No, I was speaking about myself when I referred to a last ditch effort to assume good faith.--MONGO 19:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thought so, but it was a little ambiguous, and beckjord try to claim you were pointing out that i had bad faith, so I figured I'd ask. DreamGuy 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicca infobox

I found it easy to agree with you here regarding the infobox. It is superfluous as well as very poorly designed. Most of the linked pages are either pointing to unrelated articles (The Goddess being a fine example), or simply do not yet exist. Thank you for taking care of that misshapen abortion of an infobox.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am just so sick and tired of people creating infoboxes that just do not add anything useful and instead have bad links and so forth and taking it upon themselves to force them on a bunch of articles without even discussing it first.Somebody creating something used across a variety of articles on a certain topic needs to get input from the editors on the articles all across the topic about whether such a thing is even desired or helpful and then if so hammering out what goes in it based upon a broad consensus across the affects articles. DreamGuy 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Elonka

I don't know if you've communicated directly with each other, but if you haven't you should. (I accept my indefinite block was probably wrong now.) If you can't see a way to drawing a line under this mess that Elonka would also accept, I'd be happy to work on mediating to try to leave us with two reasonably happy Wikipedians - David Gerard 16:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also started a new subject on WP:ANI, "Elonka mess", and unblocked her - David Gerard 17:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. - David Gerard 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and she constantly makes other personal attacks as well. She claims that me saying that something she said was a lie is a personal attack, yet on her recent post to ANI she accused me of and User:Bishonen of lying over and over and over again. She simply cannot be allowed to call anything less than flattering about her a lie that has to be removed while she and editors she encourages go around saying nonsense and calling people psychopaths and such. She doesn;t care about rules or process, just forcing her will onto everyone, and she's very smart in how she does it, by specifically contacting editors and admins I had conflicts with in the past so they can all run around and complain andmake it look like a big deal when it's just an editor throwing a tantrum and demanding -- she calls it "non-negotiable" on her website -- that she removes whatever she objects to or else. DreamGuy 13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I need your advice

Hi, I'm sorry to trouble you but I need advice and you seem the best person to ask. At the John Byrne article it seems to my mind that someone is attempting to add information, which whilst true, unbalances the article too much with respect the attention and depth of the material presented. I don't object to the underlying principle, that Byrne shoots his mouth off, is an idiot and picks stupid fights, but I'm not sure we need to list every damn time he does so. Surely this stuff could easily be summarised? Could you have a brief look at the following diffs, [4], [5] and [6], and basically let me know if you think I'm way off base or not. I'd appreciate an independent view, and I'm fairly sure you'll give me an honest and more importantly, unbiased opinion despite our previous interaction. Steve block talk 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like youp're 100% right... Most of that stuff is just not encyclopedic at all. Say he's made controversial statements, summarize a couple, maybe link to someplace that goes into all the detail for those few people who care, but it's just not relevant, and including it is just insane. It's POV pushing by unbalanced coverage if nothing else. If I go to a page about some celebrity (or a field-specific one), I don't want to know about their political views or everything stupid they ever said, I want to know about their professional life -- what they are famous for. Some celebrities end up being more famous for political views, such as Sean Penn or Jeanne Garaffolo (sp) or Charleton Heston or (how can I forget) Arnold Schwarzenegger, but even there it has to be measured for overall fame and importance. The Onion gaffe doesn't even rate, the Wikipedia thing is absolutely bizarre, perhaps some on interaction with other comics personalities but not in long long quotes. A few good external links can take care of all that and be as unbiased as they like. DreamGuy 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the help. I'll keep an eye on this, I completely agree with your reasoning above. Steve block talk 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Police officer

Are you a police officer ? How else someone can conduct good WP:NPOV and the like ? Just had a hunch that you are a police officer. Martial Law 05:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Police officer? No. Author/editor/publisher. DreamGuy 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A police officer or a doctor has to be like that or someone can end up dead, wrong person ends up in jail. How do you do it ? Martial Law 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Objective writing is part of the basics taught in journalism classes. DreamGuy 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Vantage Press

What do you think of the publisher Vantage Press ? Known link is Vantage Press. They even pay for "controversial" material, and claim they're a subsidy publisher. I see the ads on TV from time to time, have seen their ad in The Farmer's Almanac. Martial Law 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Since you are a publisher, I thought you might want to examine this, and is there anything in Wikipedia about these publishers ? Martial Law 05:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Vanity press, for starters. DreamGuy 05:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

A final decision has been reached in this arbitration case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That was quick... though the results seem worded oddly. Banned from all paranormal articles, banned from all sockpuppets, banned for a year, but "Should Beckjord violate any ban he may be blocked briefly, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses."...? I would assume that violating the one year ban on a sockpuppet would get the sock banned for that year right away and not "up to a week". Weird. DreamGuy 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Should he violate an article ban after his one year general ban is up, that is, since those are indefinite. Any violation of the general ban will result in a reset of the year. Dmcdevit·t 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Groovy. Like I figured. The things could be worded a little more clearly though. DreamGuy 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what [7] this was all about? (Why he mentioned me in the first place, this stuff has gotten rather old)εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Response from admin who deleted images that IFD said were fine to keep

IFD is broken, clear items that should be removed get one vote for retain by the uploader and kept. This image was not being used in an article properly and I removed it. The Fair Use policy is very clear on our use of DVD covers, we lose any defense of fair use on such covers when they are not a critical review of the film in question. There isn't even any mention of the film on that page. DVD covers are not allowed on the pages of the actors, plain and simple, read the tage (Template:DVDcover). It was a violation, I corrected the violation, you incorrectly said I "strictly interpreted" it when on it's face it clearly says what the intent of those images is for fair use criteria. I deleted it on sight once it was being abused. --Wgfinley 17:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. You can't just decide IFD is broken and ignore it. Your interpretation of fair use is completely messed up, as discussed and decided by plenty of other people whenever these things come up. If you delete on sight not following process than you are yet another rogue admin making nonsense decisions and ignoring other people based upon your ego instead of policy. DreamGuy 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

mixed signals

Wikipedia admins are currently getting mixed signals on what they should and should not delete. I'm trying to sort this out. Kim Bruning 06:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Little help?

I know we've had our differences in the past, but I need a special kind of brutality that I myself am unable to muster in this matter. One "DJJohnson" made a grand total of 3 edits to Wikipedia. These were all clearly copy-paste edits from Enclyclopedia Mythica, which you, Haukurth, myself and no doubt many other know not to trust. Potential violations of copyright on the "research" of those writers aside, they are poorly written, and have thus far gone unnoticed. A quick Google-search will reveal that the "Soku-no-Kumi" thing is not worthy of mention (perhaps even non-existent?), and probably also a misspelling (the Japanese for "country" is kuni). Any idea what we can do with all this? Would speedy deletion work? elvenscout742 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is "Encyclopedia Mythica" and where is it found ? Website ? Martial Law 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. [8]. I haven't come across any particular problems there in the past, other than a true lack of information, but this seems entirely unverifiable. elvenscout742 02:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations are easy. If the page is brand new, through a speedy delete up with copy vio and where from so they can kill whole thing off right away. Otherwise the copyright violations page explains how to take care of them. DreamGuy 23:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam spam spam spam lovely spam

"remove spam by spammy spammer spamming his own spam site"?! Getting a little tired of reverting spammers, are we? ;-) Elf | Talk 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban legends

Sorry about the deletion, I figured it was either spam or some dumb joke. It's up and running now, and it's a good site. It debunks a lot of the junk that certain bean-brained "Christians" have been circulating for years. I'm guessing that the guy who deleted it originally, before you added and I deleted it and you re-added it, was one of those bean-brains and didn't like having his prejudices challenged. Wahkeenah 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Reverts

Hello DreamGuy. I wanted to mention that you were correct abuot the external link policy (as you pointed out to me) and thank you for bringing that to my attention. Reading on, I see that the proper method of adding a link with which one is associated is to include it on the discussion page. Though you didn't mention this, it was helpful to point me in the right direction. One thing I did want to dispute however is a comment you left at the Kabul history page stating "link added by User:Abdullah Tahir whose contribution history edit comments show he is webmaster of that site and edits only to promote it". As I mentioned, I did add links to the site I am associated with, but all were relevant to the topics. But the disagreement I have is with editing only to promote the site. My history, though short, on Wikipedia is also associated with adding information on Faizani the man from afghanistan and with Islamic topics (as noted by the inclusion of the info on the Pul-i Khishti Mosque protest). Thank you for your time, --Abdullah Tahir 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(revert nonnotable)

Hi Dream Guy, I see that you have decided to delete the information that I posted on the page about serial killer John Wayne Gacy. As I am sure you remember, I posted some information under "Songs and Music." I am not upset about this removal, it's just that I don't understand and would love for you to explain your decision, and the actions you have carried out based on that decision.

Please explain how these two facts are relevant: -Macabre has a song about Gacy titled "Gacy's Lot"; it appears on the Sinister Slaughter album. -Fear Factory has a song about Gacy titled "Suffer Age" on the Soul of a New Machine album.

And somehow this one is not: -Church of Misery, a Japanese metal band, released an album about serial-killers entitled Master of Brutality, in 2001. The title track is about John Wayne Gacy.

I think that Wikipedia is a great resource for all kinds of information. My passion is music, and I would love to share my knowledge of it with everyone through Wikipedia. I cited a band who have composed a song about Gacy, just as the other users have. But, you found my comment, which is completely similar and also equally accurate, to be "nonnotable." If I have posted in error please educate me, so that I won't continue to do so, as I intend to. Strit 07:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that, if none of the bands have any information on Wikipedia (due to nonnotability), they possibly don't deserve to be mentioned on the page itself. An argument could also be made that they aren't especially relevant to the original topic (Gacy himself). I'm not speaking for DreamGuy, I'm just pointing out what might be the issue. EVula 17:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What EVula said. DreamGuy 18:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanguinarian

So, I reverted the redirect you did on the Sanguinarian article. I explain more on the talk page, but I think that getting rid of the article altogether will cause a lot of arguement. The problem is quite a lot of these vampire article fork content from each other, especially that blood sharing bit. What do you say to creating a whole new article entitle "modern vampire" or something similar? --Kerowyn 22:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re The Law of the Playground

I don't know if this qualifies as a rant. I don't dispute that the article should be examined for its notability or submitted for an AfD if necessary, but... I have no formal connection with that website, and do not thank you for the suggestion that I abuse Wikipedia. It may be that The Law of the Playground is non-notable; I'm not arguing about that. I would just like to call you up on an unfounded assertion about my character. I have no interest in procuring free advertising. I am not a large contributor but I have created a number of articles on matters I consider valuable. Matthew Platts 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wandering Jew

Hey, I've noticed you've been pretty good at trimming down lists of pop culture references in articles, could you check out the Wandering Jew page? I had been trying to remove the ones with no real connection to the subject, but I don't have the patience or inclination to do it anymore. Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Headgear

You blanked the Template:Headgear with the comment (totally pointless infobox, esaier to blank it with space so as not to require removing from ton of poor articles this sorry excuse for an infobox has invaded). While it may be easier to blank the template the correct thing to do is to nominate it for deletion. In fact I did that several months ago and it survived (NO CONSENSUS). See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 18. If you think that there can be a consensus formed by the community now, nominate it again. If you do, please leave a message on my talk page so I can add in my comments to delete. Jon513 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Something that goes on multiple pages shouldn't just be created and pushed everywhere without the consensus of every page it goes on. If there was no consensus to keep the thing it's obvious it shouldn;t be used anywhere. DreamGuy 07:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. If there is such a template it should be used consistently. It would not make sense to have it on hats and not on Wigs. Again, I don't think that this template should exist either, but there is a way that things are done here. Perhaps you can raise the issue on the affected articles' talk pages to generate support for a second Template for deletion. Jon513 14:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, no. Please don't try to tell me how things are done here when what you are suggesting means that any yutz off the street can force a crap infobox on a ton of articles without gaining any sort of consensus to do so and then demand consensus to remove it. IT certainly does make sense to have it on hats and not wigs, if the editors on wigs don;t think it belongs there. I mean, come on, don;t fall for a bunch of red tape crap nonsense that's the exact opposite of the way things are done here and try to tell me that that's what needs to be done. DreamGuy 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point perhaps you should raise the issue at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and propose a new policy. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by blanking the page. Discuss the issue and try to effect a policy change. Jon513 16:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", I am following Wikipedia's rules on consensus. And I already told you not to try to tell me how things work here when you obviously don't know yourself, so please heed taht request and go learn about Wikipedia yourself instead of making up nonsense. DreamGuy 08:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Headgear is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Headgear. Jon513 17:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, it actually got deleted! Sometimes the good guys can actually prevail no matter how much red tape nonsense the bad guys try to hide behind. DreamGuy 10:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Therianthrapology

I apologize for that last edit on the Therianthropy article. I guess I was so eager to wipe away all of TFV's droppings, I didn't realize I hadn't read to the last version. Coyoty 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Circus

Dreamguy,

I noticed that you deleted several of the external links from the circus article. While I agree with having deleted the link selling circus posters (I would have deleted that myself), I really don't understand why you removed the other links - they are two of the most content rich circus websites sites on the internet, and they are both clearly exactly the kind of encyclopedic web content that should be linked to in the external links section.

I am going to go back and add the sites you deleted back to that article. The talk page for circus has (and has had for many months) a thread discussing the external links section, with a specific request to give the rational for deleting specific sites. If you still feel those sites should be removed, please also give your reasoning for doing so in that thread.

Therianthropy Article

I notice you are interested in editing the therianthropy article. See Talk:Therianthropy#Disambiguation for a disambiguation that was apparently accidentally wiped out because of all the recent vandalism. I've also got stuff on my user page about the disambiguation.Blue Milk Mathematician 21:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Your edit summary on mythology was slightly less than professional ; ) - gave me a good laugh but I have seen these things inflame other editors so it's best to keep to politically correct factual comments. Sophia 08:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not have been politically correct, but it definitely was factual. The editors whose bad changes I undid have a long history of bad behavior here, so the inflame part was a moot point a long time ago. DreamGuy 10:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - wasn't sure of the background just noticed a very long and amusing edit summary on my watchlist. Sophia 11:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Centauri

Got your message about Spring Heeled Jack. I do like making sure articles on Victorian England-related topics are accurate. You were right, that one had some people making very bad edits. Looks like your recent changes there took care of the problems, so there's nothing for me to do on it unless someone reverts you again. I'll put it on my watch list.

After seeing User:Centauri making what looked like blind reverts just for the sake of being contrary, I checked his edit history and saw the same thing over on Beelzebub, except there it was much worse, with him insisting on restoring a link to a decptive spam site, probably just because he knew it would upset you. I'll do what I can. With any luck he'll see the errors of his ways and stop breaking policies just to try to have his own way. Victrix 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)