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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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 on these pages, your posts are not welcome here. If you do post, your comments will be removed without being read. 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 am referring to here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.

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

Lore Sjöberg

Thank you for putting up that quote and a link to the Wired article on your user page. It's been a while since I've laughed so much. As they say, it's funny because it's true :) §FreeRangeFrog 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, once I saw that one I knew I had to include it.DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you should know that Arcayne's complaining about you in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

From what I'm seeing here, he didn't bother to inform you.

It's really sad. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for this guy. Doesn't he have anything else in his life? Erikeltic (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have ANI watchlisted, and whenever I see him posting there I check to see if he's complaining about me or not, so I already replied.

He's frankly obsessed with me and constantly seeks out ways to get into conflict with me, but thankfully he usually loses. At this point he's been stumbling so badly and doing the same to so many other people that I suspect he's probably heading for some serious consequences soon. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

God I hope so. It's just unfair that he gets to abuse the system [and other editors] the way that he does. Erikeltic (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to my user page

Hi. I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I think that they didn't appreciate my removal of their spam from the Untouchable (Girls Aloud song) page. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 18:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Urban Legends

Your edit, summ'd "this list is full of content that has very list purpose for being here, if any -- clearing out ones already linked to in article, that aren't ULs or related" -- has needed doing for a loooong time. thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. DreamGuy (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Serial deproder

Hi there. I'd just like to add my personal support to your efforts against the disruptive edits by the likes of Varbas. Keep up the good work. Don't let thugs stop you. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From the sea of red links showing up on my watchlist currently it looks like a whole lot of articles deprodded by Varbas/User:Azviz for no good reason are finally getting deleted, and I expect more soon. With any luck the sockpuppet investigation will finally get him banned for good... until he pops up using yet another new account again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI - in case you missed it, Varbas has indeed been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you for letting me know. Didn't see a notice pop up anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

courtesy notification

Your Canadian friends have opened a thread about you on AN/I. Looks like you might have hit a nail on the head..
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Saw that he reverted the IP talk page. The ANI post certainly doesn't help his case any. DreamGuy (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for two weeks as a sock of you-know-who. I think everyone is catching on by about the fourth time that this has happened. :) MuZemike 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for filing that report and letting me know the results. DreamGuy (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Columbus'(s) egg

Learning something new every day... Thanks, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ambigram

Hi DreamGuy, I have recently made some changes to an article, Ambigram, you have previously edited and have shown some interest in. Another similarly interested editor has suggested my changes are outside expressed consensus and has an interest in discussing my edits upon his return from vacation. As you were actively involved in previous discussions I would humbly request your participation or that you watch developments on this page. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have seen his ownership issues along with his clear misunderstanding on consensus and his lack of understanding of wikipedea policies. I have seen your attempts to point out the obvious to him and his dismisal of such attempts. Aggressive owners do not stop me. My changes to EL are the only changes I made and I see as questionable. DMOZ seemed to me to be close to a social site, that opinion may be outside consensus and is so reverted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

John Borowski

Fron Wikipedia entry on John Borowski:

"John Borowski is an American filmmaker whose recent films have focused on serial killers H.H. Holmes and Albert Fish."

I recently watched a movie "Portraits in evil" by this John Borowski, and the serial killers he discusses in the movies are discussed with some identical phrases and ideas as their respective Wikipedia entries. Reading on DreamGuy's user page, I notice his interests and that he is a publisher, and just have to ask... Any relationship, sir? Oh, and upon further inspection, the John Borowski page was edited one time by DreamGuy, and it was to edit a proposition to delete the John Borowski page due to self promotion. I'm intrigued...Debollweevil (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd paid attention to the edits, I was trying to delete the article because some other editor was using it for self promotion, and the edits that actually added wording similar to the movie were obviously added by someone other than myself. If you are trying to accuse me of self-promotion because I caught someone else promoting themselves, that's absurd. It's almost as bad as being accused of being a vandalism when I delete someone else's vandalism. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just observant. No accusation... maybe a slight insinuation but no offense intended. I was actually hoping that there was a connection between you two! Debollweevil (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no connection. I haven't seen "Portraits in Evil" but if the info is copied straight from Wikipedia that should tell you how little you should trust him as a source. DreamGuy (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not sure exactly what is going on. The H. H. Holmes documentary was released in 2004, but the compilation with the other serial killers was released earlier this year. As I said earlier, I'm just observant and trying to piece things together. Sorry if I gave the impression of trying to harass you. Debollweevil (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Film noir

An editor has made token improvements to this article and removed the {{essay}} tag- can you please review? The article still does things like include its own definition of what a film noir is without any citation, the "Approaches to defining noir" section is a vary glaring instance of an essay-like tone. I was going to ask Sarek of Vulcan, who also understood the essay tag, but he seems to be on break, so feel free to ignore this if you're busy. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There were next to no changes to the text (though added sources are good), so I put the tag back. DreamGuy (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet case

Hello DG, I've started an SPI here regarding a user that you may be more familiar with than I and wanted to let you know in case you have any comments. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for help on skeptic articles

Hey remember that editor who marked a wad of skeptic articles for WP:N problems? You remarked that he was engaging in WP:POINT. Well he marked nine of them for deletion today. Several of us think this is very premature. Could you take a look? Thanks much! --Krelnik (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological assocations against Wikipedia

I see that you commented saying that this is not the APA against Wikipedia. I just received a message from my college saying that a number of psychological associations have put forth official complaints. So it seems this is the APA against Wikipedia. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it shouldn't surprise me. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Old copyvio"

I placed a response on my discussion page. Verne Equinox (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

While I appreciate the anti-spam goal behind your TfD for {{Web presence}}, it was, IMO, premature, and the template deserves to survive this TfD.

I don't really expect the template to be very popular (although I might be wrong). Unfortunately, if this TfD is closed as "keep", then that fact alone may make it harder to delete it in the future. Perhaps you would like to consider the possible (probably slight) strategic advantage of withdrawing the nomination for now, and taking it up again, if it seems appropriate, after people have some experience with the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve to survive, it deserves to be wiped off the project completely and the people who started it up given a firm lecture about how Wikipedia works. Unfortunately most of the even clearly inappropriate templates for linking to sites that go up for a vote survives due to the people voting there being either ignorant of or totally disdainful of our rules and goals as a project. You don't need to have any experience with the template to know it's bad when it's entire purpose for existing is a massive violation of everything WP:EL and WP:NOT stands for. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley

I am not sure how the Venture Bros reference is the only nonnotable trivia listed under cultural references. I also see that this isn't the first time this has come up, so I would argue that under WP:HTRIVIA and your interpretation the Crowley entry has an All-purpose heading that needs to be removed in its entirety, no exceptions. I disagree with this premise, but you should at least be consistant and wipe the whole section --Momosgarage.talk.contribs 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? DreamGuy (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am. So what is the precident that we are going to set for this article. The All-purpose heading titled "cultural references" should either include everything or just be deleted in its entirety. However I think this is a futile stance as people will continue to undo or restore the stuff you continue to remove.Momosgarage.talk.contribs 08:47, 01 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an example of an argument that makes no sense on Wikipedia, which is why I pointed it out to you. The idea that either anything in pop culture MUST be mentioned or NOTHING must be mentioned is simply not how things work here at all. And, frankly, the idea that you either get what you want or nobody gets anything else either is one that doesn't work in the real world.

And if you are expressing a desire to edit war to restore nonnotable trivia, the best advice I have for you is not to bother. If people who don't understand the Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia instead of a long list of trivia insist on putting bad content back, it will be removed, and if other editors need to be called in to make sure it stays removed they will be. If your main interest here is adding trivia of that nbature, please go to Wikia instead of here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted here because I did not want to edit war. We have a different opinion on what Wikipedia is, I get that. There is equally bad content in the cultural references section. Don't get upset because you are being inconsistent. It’s not worth my time to fight over an entry, just be aware that you will likely be the "permanent keeper" of maintaining your status quo for this article. This entry will either continue to be restored or rewritten for quite some time, whether I participate in that process or not. The Venture Bros. entry is no different than the “song influenced by” entries. I say, be consistent and keep them all or get rid of them all because cultural value or influence in this section is all based on individual preference and or academic exposure. I posted here because I was hoping to find a way to better integrate the entry into the main body of the article. A lot has been written on Crowley's life and there is a possibility that the satirical appearance of Crowley in Venture Bros has some basis in factual events. Are you an armchair Crowley expert? If so, please respond constructively to my inquiry.Momosgarage.talk.contribs 07:56, 02 September 2009 (UTC)

|I cant think of a name 994

I see those account have already been blocked. This can be dealt with at ANI now. Hut 8.5 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)