User talk:DreamGuy

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who only got their position through sucking up.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I mean here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.

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

"Finished" articles

No, I am not an admin, but I do know that you cannot tell how an article will finish until it's finished, hence my quite reasonable request to let me finish. Rather than get into an editing/revert war with you I deleted the aticle. Having started 95 articles here I hope I know something about writing them. Jack1956 (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to be "finished" to see that it isn't a noteworthy topic for a Wikipedia article. In this case the person was only noteworthy for her association with a killer. The killer already had an extensive article. It's been a standard practice on Wikipedia to not create separate articles for topics which already are covered in other articles to the full extent that they are noteworthy. If she would have been noteworthy for something other than that there may have been an argument for a separate article. Anything of note in her life should be added to that article, and of course only to the extent that it would be notable there. Otherwise she's just not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I took your point. I had another long look at the article, saw that there was little that I could say that hadn't already been said, and deleted it. Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Thomasopenshaw1.jpg

My edit summary was incorrect, but the image still does not fit any criteria for speedy deletion: List it on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, please. Thanks! —BorgHunter (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jack the Ripper

DG, I'm willing to help reach a compromise on this article, but it'd really help if you commented on content and not contributors. Mischaracterizations (including accusations of blind reverting) inflame the situation. Will you agree to refrain from making major content changes to the article while the discussion is ongoing? I'm not siding with Arcayne and Colin simply to aggravate you. I want a compromise and both sides are taking hard stances that aren't allowing for any leeway. Even if you simply give your reasons as to why you feel their edits violate policy instead of just saying they do, that would be a great start. Then we could discuss those reasons and get on with the consensus process.

Also, I'm not trying to be apologetic for other editors. Everyone working on this article needs to calm down and focus on the article itself. --clpo13_(talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)