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)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Thank you for your notification. I have just voted. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:48, 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)

Aladin (magician)

The page move was as per discussion at Deletion reveiw as was menioend in the relevant edit summery. DES ^(talk) 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny how people come to a decision without even reading the comments of other editors or the history of the conflict... votes were to redirect. Clear consensus was established. One or two people out of nowhere who did't even read enough about the controversy or the votes to understand that "aladin" is the spelling the supposed magician uses cannot in any way be considered binding. It's just a couple of clueless people taking the misrepresented summary view of a biased editor as gospel. Just because you personally think the page should be moved doesn't mean you get to overrule the long list of editors who voted to redirect the page. DreamGuy 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care enough about the dab page to fight about this, but the article clearly exists. Maybe that's an error, but if someone tries to add it to the dab again before this is resolved, perhaps it's better to leave it alone. Then when the page is actually gone, it can be removed from the dab. Tedernst | talk 05:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article does not exist, or at least it didn't when they link was removed. The fact that somebody goes back and restores it against the clear consensus of the editors on the talk page and in the vote and then tries to change other articles based upon their restoring it doesn't change anything about the outcome of the vote. I'm sick to death of people trying to lie (yes, LIE, it's a deliberate deception of people who were outvoted) and claim that votes to "Keep, but only to keep the history and the talk page so we can then erase the article and replace with a redirect" somehow means "Keep and move the article and start linking other articles to it." DreamGuy 06:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a 3RR violation revert warring (breaking the spirit of the 3RR while sticking to the letter) on Aladin (magician). Radiant_>|< 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is being discussed here. android79 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  "We can't think of any real reason to block you as you broke no policies whatsoever so we'll block you for the hell of it?" Marvelous. Incidentally, I better not be blocked right now... If I am, somebody sure as hell better be unblocking me. DreamGuy 02:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, look, I am blocked, so I can't even defend myself agains these accusations or explain the real story behind what is going on. Yet another example of an admin breaking the rules himself to try to get back at someone. Would some admin here watching this page care to unblock me so I can go explain on that page what's going on? And since the other people "edit warring" were not block this is clearly a huge violation.' DreamGuy 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice block message too... You are blocked, if you want to discuss this, email Radiant... oh but Radiant didn't put his email address in, so you can't email him. It's a wonder the don't play a soundfile of Nelson from the Simpsons saying "HAH hahh!!!" when they do that.

Beyond just unblocking me, can we start banning admins who break policy just to block other people at a whim or to advance their own edit warring? This is not the first time someone has tried blocking me for "not really violating 3RR" or "well, he did something I didn't like and I don't have time to find an applicable policy." DreamGuy 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock -- there SERIOUSLY needs to be steps taken to punish or at least admonish admins who block people at a whim and not for any policy. This place gets more and more like the Wild West every day: shoot first and ask questions later, do what you want and if someone else doesn;t like it just ignore them or threaten them. DreamGuy 04:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Deadly Poison edits

(Moved from your user page --Petros471 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Judging from your user name it looks like you are a member of the group you keep adding references to all across Wikipedia. Please stop. This is considered spam. The article does not give any reason for anyone to believe the group is encyclopedic or in fact that it even exists at all. Please read our Verifiability policy and understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a mere blog. DreamGuy 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the correct place to answer you, if it is not I am sorry. Thank you for letting me know that adding references across Wikipedia is considered spam, I didn't know and I won't do it anymore.

I am not part of the group, even though I have registered to place the entry about it and write the information. I am not an occultist, I am a college student of anthropology that have done a work about DPVO. Even though some of the research was done by myself, all the information is based on books and occult magazines (some could only find on different Portuguese occult bookshops), as it is rule for Wikipedia information. I haven't done any field work (research), so actually any of this material and information is new. As for the information to be encyclopedic, I think that if it is worth an essay in college, and an organization with more than 100 members in Portugal (I don't have the real confirmed numbers for the Spanish division), it surely is encyclopedic information, that can be helpful for other students. I have already provided one book that has the source for some of the information, i'll check back my work's biography and include some other citations of you want. As for the question about the order existing at all, I don't think that is even questionable, you can contact anyone in the Portuguese occult scene and everyone has heard and read about it. Even on a SIC (One of the Portuguese TV Channels - www.sic.pt) debate they talked about it. (Deadlypoison 16:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Well, if you provide sources and stuff, all is good for the main article... though it'd still be very questionable to list it on many of the pages you did. DreamGuy 06:16, 23 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)

Personal attacks

(Fifth attempt to address this on the Talk page, but DreamGuy keeps deleting my messages)

DreamGuy, I have been attempting to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but you continue to delete my messages and act in an uncivil manner. I am sorry but I am going to have to escalate this to mediation. Please reconsider my comments, as can be seen at the following history pages: First attempt, 2nd attempt, 3rd attempt, 4th attempt. I am asking you to (1) cease the personal attacks and namecalling, and (2) either remove the old attacks or apologize for them. Elonka 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I hate to say it but I think your wasting your time. If you go through his talk page history you'll notice that every comment that he doesn't like gets reversed. You make valid points and I admire your determination but it's just going to get deleted. Englishrose 11:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)